I move—

This Bill was introduced in the House last session and hon. members have seen that it deals with a number of outstanding matters which have to be legalized and corrected inter alia as the result of the passage of the Act of 1925. I do not propose dealing with all the clauses. I may say at once that I propose sending this Bill to the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours to be dealt with, but there are some of the clauses as to which I think it is necessary that I should say a few words of explanation. Clause 1 deals with the definition of the term “continuity of employment.” As hon. members know, certain classes of servants, namely, telegraphists, drivers, drivers’ assistants or firemen, steam or electric locomotive drivers and divers, are retired at the age of 55 and not at the age of 60. The question has arisen as to whether an acting appointment held by such servants during the last five years of their service breaks the continuity of service. Let me give an example. A driver acts during the last five years of service as a shedman. The question now arises as to whether there is a break in the continuity of his service as driver. The law advisers hold that there is no such break, and that the man is still entitled to retire at 55, but they point out there is a certain measure of doubt in that regard and I am taking the necessary power here to make it quite clear that any servant of this particular class acting during the last five years of his service in an acting capacity does not break the continuity of employment, and that these men are entitled to be retired at 55. Hon. members will appreciate that if that were not so, it might lead, I do not say it would, to abuse, because the Administration could then, during the last five years of a man’s service temporarily appoint him to act in some other capacity, and in that way deprive him of his right to be retired at fifty-five. The following clauses up to Clause 5 deal with the position of servants in connection with the superannuation fund, with which I need not detain the House. Coming to Clause 6, a matter of great importance is raised, viz., the retirement under certain conditions of Mr. Felling. The House will remember that in 1922 Mr. Felling, who was the chief assistant at headquarters, was seconded for service on the Kenya and Uganda railways, but he was not then retired. I lay stress on this, that he was seconded. The Government agreed to his going to Kenya, and he took work up there. I had an opportunity a little while ago to see what Mr. Felling is doing in Kenya with regard to railway administration there, and I think it will please the House to hear that Mr. Felling has done justice in every manner and in every way to the training he had as a servant of the Railway Administration here. He has distinguished himself, and built up a system which is a credit to the country, and it is generally recognized that he has rendered outstanding services. I think it is all the more necessary that the House should recognize that the action of the Government then and subsequently in assisting the colonies in the interior of Africa is an absolutely sound one. It is necessary that we should keep in close touch with those colonies. I am glad to say that there is the very best feeling between the authorities of those colonies and the Union, and the action of the Government by assisting those communities there is, I think, an excellent indication of our goodwill to those communities. It is the policy of the present Government to continue giving that helpful assistance. It offers the Union of South Africa an opportunity to find markets in those areas, and it is necessary that the good spirit and feeling between the Union and those communities should be maintained. Mr. Felling, in his work, has not forgotten that he is a good South African. I now come to the matter which is sought to be legalized in this Bill. This matter has already been dealt with by the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, whose report is before the House, and I need not detain the House by going into it, except to say that I regret that the committee, having dealt with the matter, came to the conclusion that they could not recommend to the House the action we, and the previous Government, have taken in this regard. I regret that the committee came to the conclusion that we had dealt in too liberal a manner with Mr. Felling. Let me ask the House, and especially members of the select committee, to review the facts. At the time he was seconded he was chief assistant to the general manager, and there was a senior officer, Mr. Hill, who was acting as superintendent, outside duties. Mr. Felling received a salary of £1,265, and Mr. Hill one of £1,090, with a personal clerk at £340, the salaries payable to these officers was £2,795. As a result of the vacancy which occurred on Mr. Felling being seconded to Kenya, Mr. Hill was promoted to the position of chief assistant, and his old position was not filled; in other words, that position fell away, and the personal clerk to Mr. Hill also fell away, so that there was the immediate saving of the salary of Mr. Hill and his personal clerk. There is no question that as the result of Mr. Felling going to Kenya, an actual re-organization took place by which an improvement took place in the service, and by which money was saved. But while Mr. Felling was seconded in 1922, he was only actually retired in 1924. When he was retired the conditions were laid down on which his retirement was to take place, and it was done in terms of the Act of 1922, under which it is laid down that there can be only such retirement on the ground of financial improvement in the department. The Auditor-General then took up the position that as Mr. Felling was seconded in 1922, and the financial adjustment took place in 1922, and not in 1924, that he could not be retired in terms of the Act of 1922, under which the added years of service which were given. The matter was referred to the law advisers who supported the view of the Auditor-General. If he had been retired in 1922, there is no question—I think hon. members of the select committee will agree—that the terms of the Act of 1922 would apply. Under that Act four years and six months have been added to his years of service. He has a period of 27 years 2 months and 27 days actual service. The addition of the 4 years and 6 months increases his pension. I hope that, notwithstanding the fact that the select committee have found themselves unable to agree to the action of the Administration, the House will take the wider view, and agree that in view of the fact that Mr. Felling was seconded and subsequently retired, under those circumstances the action of the Government in 1922 and in 1924 was justifiable, and Mr. Felling should not be asked to suffer any disadvantage as a result of his having gone there. I do not propose dealing with the conditions attaching to his retirement as they are set out very clearly in the Bill. I now come to Clause 7, where we ask for special validation of the action of the Administration in exempting Ernest Albert Atkins, a clerk in the Railways and Harbours Department, from the language clause of the Railways and Harbours Service Act. Atkins was on active service from 1914 to 1918, and he had the misfortune to have the fight side of his cheek and teeth and gums and one-and-a-half inches of his tongue blown away. This was the result of having done what he considered his duty, and he was so seriously injured and his speech so impeded, that it was really impossible to ask that he should go through the test in regard to Afrikaans. He is an excellent clerk, and, under the circumstances, the House will agree that this is a case where exemption should be granted. I now come to Clause 8, which deals with the men who went on strike in January, 1914. I hope the House will follow me closely, otherwise the position may appear to be rather confusing. The men who went on strike in 1914 were dealt with under two Acts of Parliament. The first were dealt with under an Act passed in 1914, under which the men who had struck, but who had almost immediately afterwards returned to work, were received back into the service. Under the Act of 1922 a second class of strikers were dealt with, namely, all those who came back to the service before 1917, and were members of the superannuation fund of 1912, or some other pension fund. The class of servants we are now dealing with are all those who went on strike and did not come back to the service immediately, but did so before 1917, but were not members of any pension fund. When the Act of 1925 came into operation it was found that owing to the fact that these men had not been contributors to a fund, they could not link up their previous service for pension purposes. It is an act of justice to these men that they should be allowed to contribute for the period of service before they went on strike. The number of men affected is 20, and the liability of the Administration will be increased by £1,156. I move the second reading of the Bill.

I am very glad the Minister is sending this Bill to the Select Committee on Railways, as there are many points on which we want some explanation beyond that given by the Minister. Has the Conciliation Board been consulted with regard to the Bill, and, if not, why not? I do not think anybody objects to the men who went on strike and were reinstated receiving equal treatment to that accorded to the other servants in the department. Once they are forgiven any wrong they have committed they should have proper treatment, but there is a class which has not had fair treatment. Many men have had to leave the service owing to their participation in the great war, and they have not been reinstated. They should have fair treatment at the same time as we give fair treatment to men who deserted the service at the time the service needed them. Under Clause 2 there will be two provisos, as there is one proviso in the existing Act, and another is inserted in the Bill, and, unfortunately, one proviso is contradictory to the other. The Minister shakes his head, but the point is worth looking into. I should like to know what is the effect of the changes in Clauses 3 and 5 as compared with the provisions of the present law? As to Mr. Felling, everybody admits that he did very good work, and he was marked down for very high honours. He has gone to another country, where he has also done good service, but now the Minister comes forward with a proposal contrary to what the select committee decided.

I hope the committee will be more wise this time.

Then the Minister will have to change his own opinion, for if I remember rightly, he voted with the majority on this matter.

No, I did not attend the committee at all.

The trouble is that select committee reports are not considered in the House. Had we an opportunity to do so we would no doubt be able to convince those not on the committee and who were not privileged to hear the evidence that our conclusions are correct. His argument to-day was that, owing to Mr. Felling leaving the service, the Administration had been put to extra cost. We know that in every department of the railway, costs have increased, and the claim now that they are due to Mr. Felling’s leaving is entirely fallacious.

My argument was that we saved money as a result of his going.

Then I misunderstood the Minister. Why is it important that this matter should stand over until this man reaches 60 years of age? He has left the service now and is employed by another Government. Has he to continue with his contributions? By allowing him to continue with his contributions, one would like to know if it is to the detriment of other men still in the service. By all the rules of the service he should be in receipt of his pension as soon as he leaves. I cannot understand this, and perhaps we shall get information later on. I want to ask the Minister about the other case where the man was severely wounded. There are many similar cases of men who suffered the same way, and should be helped by some consideration being shown to them. Then I come to the strike clause. If you look at Section 30 we find provision is made for those men who have not, under the terms of the Act, returned to work, and by inference we must accept the position that all others who returned immediately would be treated in the same way as those who did not leave the service. In support of this I quote the Minister during the debate on that Act. [Hansard columns 3998 and 3999 read.] These men have been put in exactly the same position as those who did not go on strike. That was the Minister’s view in 1925, and that was the view of all of us. Those accepted back immediately after the strike would be in the same position as those who did not go on strike.

It was overlooked that some of them had not been contributors to the fund before.

We want a clearer explanation because, much as we want to help these men, we do not want them to have benefits over those who remained loyal to the service, and with that point made very clear, we should be satisfied to pass this. The superannuation fund is an intricate matter to understand, and we want some of those who have been running this fund to come and explain that if we agree to this, the older hands who remained loyal will in no way suffer. But for these few points we shall be glad to assist the Minister to set matters right, and I trust on this occasion that the select committee report will have some chance of being considered on the floor of this House.

I want to say a few words in regard to Clause 6—Mr. Felling. I remember when he left the service and went to join the Kenya and Uganda railway. And, if I remember rightly, Mr. Felling wanted to leave the door open so that if the conditions in Uganda did not suit him, he wanted to come back. He remained on, however, and I was responsible as much as the Minister for the position [inaudible]. I hope the Select Committee on Railways will take a more liberal view. We have more information now. I think it is perfectly just and fair, and I hope the House will agree to it.

In these days of brotherly love when everybody is metaphorically falling on each other’s necks, I think the Minister should wipe the slate clean with regard to what has happened in the past, and I ask the Minister to wipe the slate entirely clean of anything connected with the strike in 1914. I also want him to make provision in the Bill for a large number of railway servants who have not been given the benefits I thought they would have been given under the new railway superannuation fund. Quite a respectable number of young men in the old days were encouraged to leave the railway service at the end of their apprenticeship and go overseas, and to outside firms in the Union, in order to gain experience, with the result that they returned better fitted for the service, but no provision was made for the condonation of the break in their cases. I want the Minister to accept the suggestion I have made on several occasions and agree to these servants receiving in full the very valuable benefits of the improved superannuation fund. I have had communications from many of these men. To-day in the Salt River Works there are about 8 or 9 who are affected. I hope that the Minister, before the Bill goes to the select committee, will consider this point and see whether he cannot make a clean sweep of all these cases of broken service.

I should like to support what the Minister has said in regard to the proposals relating to Mr. Felling. I maintain that in the treatment of an officer whose services have redounded so much to the credit of the Union in the northern colony of Kenya, we should not be too niggardly in recognizing the value of the services he rendered here, and we should treat him in a reasonably generous manner. I entirely support what the Minister has said in this matter, because recently, when on a visit to Kenya, in 1926, I had occasion to realize that Mr. Felling’s services had made good, not only his own reputation for efficiency, but also that of the public service of the Union, and that, throughout the service from the Governor downwards, his value was recognized in Kenya.

I just want to bring another point in connection with this matter to the notice of the Minister, and I do so, not on account of the “brotherly love” which exists at the present time, because I think that is really more newspaper talk than anything else, but I bring it forward because I think that the point I am submitting is one of pure justice. I look upon the position in connection with the railway men who went on strike as one that requires rectification. These men went on strike, as we hold, not because of any fault on their own part, but on account of the fact that they were actually, as a result of general circumstances, forced into that position in some cases by the employers; I think in most cases. This Bill seeks to do justice to them in respect of their pensions, not full justice, but, at any rate, some justice. The point I want really to put to the Minister is this, that once it has been accepted, as it has been accepted to a considerable extent, that the fact that men left the service on account of the strike, should not be held up as something against them for which they should be punished. I would like the Minister to take into consideration and also the select committee, if this Bill goes to select committee, a point that I think is very necessary, and that is that the men who went out on strike should not be punished by being kept in inferior positions to what they would otherwise have occupied in the service. I have been informed by many railwaymen on the Rand that as a consequence of the strike men have not been able to get the promotion to which they would otherwise have been entitled, and you have men who are juniors in the service occupying positions over men who would otherwise be seniors. You have not condoned the conduct of the men who went on strike, because they are still being punished, and the consequence is that there has been a considerable amount of dissatisfaction by reason of the fact that men who are juniors in the service are occupying higher positions. I do trust that the Minister will take this matter into consideration.

I wish to associate myself very heartily with the representations made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) with respect to men who broke their service by going on military service. I have certain information that I could place at the disposal of the Minister, hut I hope he will include their cases in the purview of the Bill.

The hon. members for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) have mentioned the case of those who went on military service. I am surprised to hear that there are any complaints, because I was under the impression that those officials were treated in a particularly favourable way. The hon. member did not give specific cases, but if he gives particulars I will go into the matter. Injustice must not be done to those who did their duty at that time. Then I was surprised to hear the hon. member making a complaint about the Atkins case. He did not so much object to that case, but said there were other cases. If so, they will be dealt with, but why should it be grudged to Atkins? If the hon. member can bring to my notice any instance similar to the Atkins case I am prepared to treat it on its merits. The hon. members for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and Salt River (Mr. Snow) raised the question of promotion in the service with reference to the 1914 strike, and said that we must wipe out all the past and the Act of 1914. That is what we are now doing, but when they ask that the past be wiped out for promotion purposes, I must say that it is impossible. If that is done then the officials who have been promoted in the meantime will be degraded, because, if their former service is allowed to count, then the officials who did not strike and were promoted will be degraded. If we are to put the people on a favourable basis we must not do it at the expense of those in the meantime promoted.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

On the motion that the House go into committee on 14th November,

Why not take it now?

I undertook to send the Bill to a select committee. Hon. members pressed me for that.

Will the House be sitting then?

Certainly.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Motion put, and Sir Thomas Smartt called for a division,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—65.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hávenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—44.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Robinson, C. P.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Following message to the Senate read—

On the motion of Mr. Jagger, the debate on the diamond cutting agreement was adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.