I wish to inform the House that the following are the names of the members of the Commission on Native matters foreshadowed some time ago: Dr. A. W. Roberts, Mr. P. W. le Roux van Niekerk (members of the Native Affairs Commission); Adv. F. A. W. Lucas (Chairman of the Wage Board); Dr. J. E. Holloway (Director of Census); Dr. H. C. M. Fourie (minister of religion); Maj. R. Anderson of Empangeni (Zululand farmer) and Mr. A. M. Mostert of Balfour (farmer). Dr. Holloway to be the chairman and Mr. C. Faye of the Native Affairs Office, Pietermaritzburg, secretary.

I move—

The Bill now before the House only contains two clauses, they are just two matters that are very urgent, and for that reason they are brought up during this session. It is not at all proposed to deal with the whole question of miners’ phthisis, because only a portion of the report of the miners’ phthisis commission is, in the meantime, available. I hope, therefore, that the debate will only refer to these two subjects in the Bill. The first clause relates to the sum which is annually spent by the miners’ phthisis commission for the education of children, and widows of silicotics, and to the loins which are made for industrial purposes. As hon. members know, under Act 35 of 1925, Section 39, paragraph 3, the power was given to the miners’ phthisis board to draw for these purposes from 1925, for a period of five years, certain sums every quarter. This authority was, however, restricted to only five years. From all sides the opinion has been expressed, even by the miners themselves, that the miners’ phthisis board has done excellent work in this direction by the education of widows and children of silicotics. It would be disastrous if good work like this were to be stopped, but this year the period of five years will elapse, and the object of this Bill is to extend the period for a time which can be fixed by the Minister by notice in the Government Gazette. Perhaps it will be useful if I shortly explain what has already been done during the past five years for the widows and children. Two loans have been made, one of £15,000, on first mortgage, to a weaving mill and textile factory where 140 widows and girls are employed.

Widows and children of silicotics?

Yes, all widows and children of silicotics. It is possible that the number will be double. Another loan of £14,000 on first mortgage was granted to a sweet and chocolate factory where at present 130 widows and girls are working. It will be possible for the number eventually to increase to 400 or 500. The factories are both in Johannesburg, and they will start repaying the loan in 1930. There are already about 2,100 dependants of silicotics who have been assisted in their education by the board, and about 400 to 500 are not yet quite finished, while 15,000 are already working in factories and other businesses. In addition, the miners’ phthisis board has found work during the past year for more than 4,000 silicotics. According to an estimate by the miners’ phthisis board, the joint annual income of those 1,500 dependants, who have obtained work, is over £100,000. Even the President of the Chamber of Mines spoke with high praise on the work of the miners phthisis commission in this regard. I may say that the cost of training amounts to £20 per individual. I therefore hope that there will be no objection to extending the time, because the work is of the utmost importance. The second clause is intended to rectify and improve a faulty definition. The Act of 1925 lays down that natives shall receive compensation for miners’ phthisis according to their earnings. Select committees that were appointed in 1918 and 1919 rejected the motion which laid down that natives’ earnings should not only be regarded with their actual wages, but also accommodation, food, and other privileges such as medical attention. Both select committees rejected that interpretation, and we have always hitherto, in paying compensation to natives, only considered the actual wages. Doubt, however, arose about the definition of the word “earnings, " in the Act of 1925, and in the Act of 1919. As to the future I do not now want to make any proposals, hut all the present Bill wants to put right is that the interpretation of the word “earnings,” as it has been interpreted in the past, shall receive legal recognition. We do not lay down what it will be in the future, and if there is any other view about it we can debate it next year when, presumably in consequence of the report of the miners’ phthisis commission, I shall have to introduce a detailed Bill into the House. Then we can deal with that question, but the object now is merely to legalise the practice in the past, especially in view of a test case which might arise, It is calculated that about 10,000 natives are concerned in the matter, and a different interpretation of the word “earnings” would make a large hole in the funds. We have in the past acted with the knowledge and consent of the department of Native Affairs, and I therefore ask that this second provision in the Bill shall he approved by the House.

Would the Minister give us a short résume of his speech in English? I am sorry to impose on the goodwill of the Minister.

complied.

Might I express my appreciation of the courtesy of the Minister to have given us that in English. I am very sorry indeed that the Government has taken up this attitude with regard to native wages. The Minister says this has been the practice, and all he is asking the House to do to-day is to put in legal form what precisely has taken place all the time—in computing the compensation for miners’ phthisis, and I presume in other directions, the payment the mines shall make to the phthisis fund—they shall take into consideration the cash payment to the natives, and not food, accommodation and the like. That is a pernicious principle, whether it has been the practice or not. The fact remains that the native gets less in cash because he is getting the rest in kind. In arriving at a fair estimate of the earnings of a native you must take into consideration the cost of his food, accommodation and everything else, and that is the principle accepted all the world over—that in computing wages everything that a man gets shall be counted; in fact, so concerned is the trade union movement throughout the world as to the abuse of the system of paying part in cash and part in kind that they have agitated, and in England, at all events, they have introduced the Truck Act, under which no person shall be paid any portion of his wages, not one farthing, in kind. It is taking a very unfair advantage of the native. This is one of these snowballs. People like myself who objected to the compounding of natives and indentured labour of any description, except, of course, for apprentices, have had our objections lulled constantly by its being said, “Well, in view of the fact that we have to have these natives in compounds, you cannot treat them exactly the same as your ordinary civilized labour outside.” But that should not apply here. I will go so far as to characterize this as legalised robbery. If the Minister insists on carrying this Bill through the House, and makes it law, I must characterize it as taking advantage of the poor natives; and, in fact, it is actual robbery. The native gets his 1s. 6d. or 2s. in the form of cash, but he also gets the other, and it is very difficult to compute. In arriving at the computation of what a native ought to receive in terms of cash, it is always taken into consideration what is the cost of feeding and housing him. Surely the native has every right to demand that this should be included as part of his wages when you are computing what his wages are. If he were not being fed or housed, the employers would have to pay him more in cash, otherwise he would not work, and the House would not agree to the native working at such wages. The Minister takes refuge behind the fact that a select committee reported dead against taking this into consideration. That does not make it right. He also says it was acquiesced in by the Native Affairs Department, and that that was their interpretation of the law too; hut what about the native? It is one thing for a select committee and the department to acquiesce, but what of the native? What efforts have the Minister and his department made to ascertain (he wishes of the native? I want to issue a warning to this House. We have had legislation of a very savage nature passed during this session. The Riotous Assemblies Bill has been passed, the object of which is to dragoon the natives into doing things they have no desire to do. We have had other legislation. We have had natives prohibited from holding meetings—

The hon. member must not cast reflection on Acts passed.

Under Acts already passed by this House and previously, natives are prohibited from giving full expression to their desires and aspirations. When on that you impose a thing like this, which is intended to deprive them of their just rights, then I have a right to say that the natives are not being treated as part of the citizens of this country. Under those circumstances, I must oppose this Bill on behalf of fundamental justice. I wish the Minister had told us in introducing this measure how the doubt he has mentioned arose. If it is a mere doubt on the part of the Native Affairs Department, or on the part of the employers, I cannot conceive of them urging legislation on the Minister. Has this doubt arisen because the natives have been asking that these services such as food and housing should be counted as part of their wages in computing the compensation? What this is designed to do is to prevent the natives from getting their full compensation for silicosis and tuberculosis. The method of computing compensation due is based absolutely upon the wages paid. At the last moment of the session, when the House is tired, and members are not likely to give the matter the consideration it deserves, I object to a rushed opportunity being taken of altering or defining the law, so that for all time the native shall be deprived of a part of his earnings in computing his compensation. I do no injustice to the Minister, or to his department, or to those responsible for drafting this Bill, in finally designating it as sheer, daylight robbery. Let me appeal to the Minister not to go on with this legislation. Give it some thought. Let it stand over for another session. If it has been operating against the native, and in favour of the employer all these years, why go on with the Bill now Think over it between now and next session, and then let us deal with it calmly next year, when we shall have a better opportunity of giving it fair consideration in all its bearings.

I do not want to agree with everything that has been said by the last speaker. I want to welcome Clause 1 of the Bill. Further I want to reproach the Minister slightly, even if it is late in the session, that he has not made a few other alterations in the law which are urgently required. I realise that there is a miners’ phthisis commission engaged in making investigation, and also that any great alterations in the law must, to a great extent, be dependent on the report of that commission. What, however, I also realise is that there are a few circumstances which have been brought to the notice of the Minister, and which are so well known to the public and to the officials of his department, and in connection with that point we need not wait for the report of the commission. The first is in connection with the underfed children of silicotics. Those children are in need with the result that their scale of civilization is dropping and their education and training are interfered with. Owing to lack of clothes they are often unable to attend school, and because they are underfed they cannot properly attend to their lessons. When I first brought this matter to the Minister’s notice in the form of a question, he replied that it was difficult to find out whether the so-called children were children of silicotics. In my opinion, it ought not to be difficult for the officials of the miners’ phthisis board to get into touch with the children of silicotics who are suffering need in this way, because it can easily be noticed when they get into touch with the schools. I do not, however, want to plead for the owners themselves, because I think the report which will soon appear will deal with that side of the matter, but with regard to the children we must make an alteration now so that it can be legal for the miners’ phthisis board to assist such children according to their deserts and circumstances; when the parents do not draw attention, and are not able to provide for them. They are walking about at present with empty stomachs and half naked. On behalf of these children I want to appeal to the Minister to amend the law inasmuch as this matter has already been brought to his attention. Before I leave this point I just want to add the children for whom I am now pleading cannot be taken into the industrial school for which provision is made in Clause 1. They are children of seven, eight, nine, and ten years of age. Let us just for a moment think that they are children of such a tender age that are being ruined. It is wrong, and a blot on our civilization, and a scandalous neglect towards our future generations. Then there are also children that can go to industrial schools, but who are not suited for that kind of work, and who would prefer to go to the ordinary schools for further instruction. No provision is made for them, and I want to appeal to the Minister that comparatively the same help should be given to these children as to those who go to industrial schools. Then I want to discuss the case of silicotics who do not get a pension, but who have received compensation. They possibly become ill as the result of other complaints, such as a weak heart, or stomach, that is as a result of complaints which cannot be directly attributed to miners’ phthisis; then the miners’ phthisis board does not assist them. The people are ill, they cannot work, and if they apply for help they are told what I am about to quote. I have the reply here which was sent by the board to such a person who had become sick, and who asked for medical assistance. The reply reads—

Now I want to ask hon. members whether, it is necessary to plead for the amendment of an Act which lays down that we must wait until a person is dead to be able to decide whether he was ill, and needed medical assistance. Then we can only provide for his funeral. It is better to assist the man while he is ill, and to save the cost of the funeral. I do not think the Minister can take up the attitude that it is better to wait for the report of the miners’ phthisis commission to decide whether it is necessary to amend the Act in this respect. We are here concerned with people who have sacrificed their lives and health for the civilization of our country. They did not only work for their own benefit, and for the pockets of the owners of the industry, but those persons worked for the development and civilization of our country. They risked their lives for that. I shall be very glad if the Minister will consider moving this afternoon that the Bill should be postponed until to-morrow. I can then introduce it again, and in the meantime enquire how these amendments, which I have suggested, can be incorporated in the measure. I feel that in this connection we cannot only appeal to our national feeling, but also to our Christian national feeling. If we allow these undesirable conditions to continue it will be a blot on our people, and also a scandal to us as a Christian nation.

After the very full explanation given to the House by the Minister of Mines and Industries it seems almost unnecessary to say much about these two amendments of the previous Act. Regarding the first point put forward by the Minister we can only say that the money set aside by the board, £16,000, has been exceedingly well spent in the education and training of beneficiary widows and children. It has borne exceedingly good fruit from the point of view both of the mines, which supply the funds, and of the workers themselves, and the proposal brought forward to allow the board to continue to spend £4,000 per quarter is one which should receive support from all sections of the House. With regard to the second amendment, the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has raised an objection to this proposal. To indicate that the Minister is correct in his interpretation of what was intended I think I should draw attention to four points which bear out his interpretation In the first place the money is paid out to the native at the demand of the director of native labour, who is the specially constituted protector and guardian of native interests in this respect. It seems hardly likely that he would agree that the native should be paid less than what was intended. For 10 years he has been interpreting the Act in the sense of basing compensation to natives on wages and not on earnings as defined in the Act. The second point is, it was the intention of the select committee in 1919 that the average compensation should be about doubled. Previous compensation had been such that a native had received an average of £20 for the primary stage and it was the intention that he should get about double that. If one examines what has been spent in the interim, the average compensation for the ante-primary stage has been £37, for the primary stage £55, for the secondary stage £72, and for simple tuberculosis £50. These are average figures, and one sees that the intention of Parliament at that time has been carried out. If the intention of the hon. member for Benoni is carried out, this compensation would have to be increased by 50 per cent, in respect of the value of housing, food, clothing and other benefits. I may mention that the maximum amount paid until 1919 to natives in the primary stage was £20 and in the secondary stage £50. Since 1919 the maximum paid to any one native in the primary stage has been £100, and the maximum in the secondary stage £170. These amounts are based on the recognition of wages as distinct from earnings in the case of natives. These clearly show that the native is receiving the full compensation which the Acts intended he should receive. In the third place the history of the case before the select committee of 1919 indicates what was meant. The select committee’s report of 1919, page 31, states that Mr. Sampson moved, after the definition of month’s earnings to insert—

This was rejected, and the alternative amendment accepted, and in respect of this the definition of the Words earnings was left unchanged. It was later on mixed up with the definition of earnings of white miners, but the intention of the select committee and Parliament is clear in this respect, and the director of native labour interpreted the clause accordingly. Then there is a fourth point which bears out the meaning which I suggest, and it is this. In Act No. 35 of 1925 a month’s earnings are defined as “one-sixth part of the amount earned by the miner or native labourer in question for the 156 days which he worked last prior to the date on which he was certified by the bureau.” Now, if it was intended that lodging and food should be included, then it would not have referred to natives’ earnings for 156 days where a six-monthly period is intended. It would have referred to 182 days, the half of 365. This definition therefore also bears out the intention of Parliament to interpret native earnings as being pay actually received. I think the Minister is perfectly correct in interpreting the clause in that sense, and asking for an amendment to put this right.

I am not altogether surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé), although once or twice we have heard from him that the Government is not altogether sympathetic with the mining industry. It seems to me that the Government offers more than sympathy, it offers tangible favours to the mining industry. I am surprised that the hon. member dealt in such a cold, almost callous, manner with the position of these natives. The position is that the native who becomes disabled is not being adequately compensated, and I think we should look at it from a more humane point of view than that of the hon. member for Springs. There is another point. We have at the present time a miners’ phthisis commission sitting. Complaints were originally made that the terms of reference of the commission were too restrictive to enable it to deal properly with the question. As a result the terms of reference were widened so that it had a right to deal with all aspects of this question. I want to know from the Minister why the Government should act at this stage instead of waiting for a report of the commission and then dealing with the whole question. Has the Government already decided in advance that it does not propose to introduce legislation next session on miners’ phthisis, and therefore it will deal with the matter piecemeal? It makes one feel nervous as to what their attitude will be. There is another point to which I object. It is emphasizing and accentuating the pernicious principle that there must always be on the matter of wages and compensation some differentiation. It is apt to continue the pernicious principle of encouraging the use of cheap labour, the cheaper the compensation and the cheaper the labour, the greater the encouragement to the employer to use that cheap labour. To that extent it is prejudicing the position of white employees, not only in the mining industry, but in industry generally. Factories, for instance, would be perfectly justified in coming along to the Government and asking why they should pay a particular rate of compensation to the native when, in the case of the mining industry the natives are getting less by way of compensation than the ordinary employee. They will say that the Government are differentiating in favour of the mining industry. There might be a tendency on the part of other employers to go to the Government and ask them to make the same differentiation, so far as they are concerned. The object of the Government should be to raise the standards of those receiving lower pay, rather than to depress the standards of those receiving higher rates of pay. By differentiation such as intended by this Bill, you are tending to depress the standards of those who are better off rather than to raise the standard of life of those who are worse off. There is another point. I am free to admit that there are certain classes of labour which it is not possible for white people to do, and I would not like to see them doing that class of work. I venture to say to the Minister and to the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) that legislation of this kind, instead of encouraging the natives to come freely to the mines, is bound to scare native labour oft, and will be very prejudicial so far as the industry is concerned. If the Government wants to help the industry, it should do it in a more direct method and not at the expense of the employee. I hope the Minister will take that aspect of the question into consideration. I do not know whether this is one of those Bills which has come out of the pigeon-holes of the Chamber of Mines or the Department of Mines. It certainly does not appear to be a measure dealt with by the Cabinet. In the light of the select committee’s report, I am satisfied that this is a Bill which cannot possibly receive the support of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and the hon. the Minister of Labour. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the whole position, especially in the light of the fact that we are going to have a report from the Miners’ Phthisis Compensation Commission, and that he will withdraw the Bill and deal with the whole matter when the Miners’ Phthisis Commission report is before us.

I want to say that I entirely disapprove of this Bill, and I associate myself most heartily with my friends on the right. How anybody can say that in computing earnings, food and accommodation which is given in addition to wages should not be reckoned is a matter I cannot understand. We were informed by the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) that this interpretation was really put on by the select committee composed principally of members of the South African party. In those circumstances, one can understand that these gentlemen who on the platform and in the House talk of the rights of the natives, when it comes to natives, or the Chamber of Mines getting a certain amount of money, are on the side of the Chamber of Mines. We find, in regard to underground workers, that the proportion of whites is one to twenty of the native workers. Up to the present time, about £10,000,000 has been distributed in miners’ phthisis compensation, and only £600,000 has been given to the natives although they are about 20 to 1 of the whites. It has been pointed out that the natives have been suffering an injustice for several years, but instead of saying that they will make that injustice good, those who support this Bill want to see it perpetuated for all time and permit that injustice to continue. I think that is definitely unfair to the natives. It has been called daylight robbery by one hon. member, and I quite agree, because you are not only taking this money from them, which is already due to them, but also the money which will be due to them in years to come It is also unfair to the white workers, because the more you do this sort of thing, and cheapen the work of the natives, the more-difficult it will be for the white man to compete with them. It is an unfair advantage to native labour as against while labour. I hope the Government will listen to the advice of the hon. member who has just spoken, and will withdraw the Bill, for it will not bear scrutiny at the present time.

Section (2) deals with a matter of very considerable importance. As I intend to support this Bill, I think it is essential I should state why I intend to do so. First let me say a word in regard to the principle. I think the question of the principle of the deprivation of earnings is a matter for the Miners’ Phthisis Commission to enquire into, and when the legislation; is reviewed as the result of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission report, I shall be glad to support the points of view expressed here to-day of including payments made in kind in any compensation made to the native, which represent a far larger sum in value than the wages the native receives. The present position under the Bill is distinctly unsatisfactory. The principle of the Bill is to give relief to persons who have contracted these diseases, and the relief is given on the basis of their average earnings when employed. To enable some relationship to be maintained between the earnings and the relief given, the full earnings must be taken into account, if you cut out two-thirds of their earnings, that is, payment in kind, I am quite sure that you are doing a big injustice to this class of person. I have argued this case for the last ten or twelve years in select committees. I have received very little support, anyway I have not received enough to carry it in these select committees. Neither did I receive enough support in this House. It is a matter to be attended to in regard to coining legislation. I agree that if you are going to differentiate in these matters between white and black in the payments of compensation, you are thereby creating a distinct preference for the employment of natives in these occupations. The white man would not have a chance. I do not blame anybody for the present position. Everybody knows what was intended. But now a doubt has been expressed as to what is intended in a matter which should be put straight at once, especially when we are informed by my hon. colleague that 10,000 cases have arisen, and they are in doubt. Therefore, it is essential to put the matter right. No good purpose can be served by leaving these 10,000 cases under the belief that they are entitled to more, when the intention of Parliament at the time the Act was passed is perfectly obvious. It is the same clause in respect to black and white. The payments received in kind by white men have never been questioned. The white man has always been paid on his actual money wages. The natives fall under the same clause. No doubt has arisen on the side of the whites, and I do not see why it should have arisen on the side of the native. I think it is essential, however, that the matter should be cleared up without any prejudice to the position which will arise when the commission’s report on the matter is reviewed by this House.

I think the intervention in this debate of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is rather unfortunate. I am of the opinion of the judge who, after listening to the earnest persuasions of a junior counsel, said, “Mr. So-and-So, I agree with everything that you say, and for that reason I must find for your opponent.” How is it possible for the hon. the Minister to submit with any degree of sincerity that he supports and advocates the principles which have been enunciated and to say that he seriously supports this Bill? The hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) has told us that for a number of years the hon. Minister has been leading the attack upon the interpretation of the principle which is entirely in conflict with the measure he now supports. He led those who supported an entirely different interpretation, which the Minister proposes now to make absolute. The hon. the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has assured this House that where compensation is paid for certain disabilities consequent upon a man’s employment, that compensation is to be measured by the man’s earnings. Those earnings must necessarily include anything that the man receives, by way of “in kind”, That is perfectly clear. We had exactly the same principle laid down in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, where a white employee who is receiving something in connection with some disability he is suffering, which renders it incumbent upon his employer to pay him compensation, the amount which he had received in kind comes into the estimation of the compensation which he receives. Are we going to make a totally different principle applicable to natives I Is there any political reason why this should be the case? If so, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has certainly not informed the House. He said there had been a certain ambiguity over a certain number of years.

I never had any doubt.

Why then has the case of the natives been prejudiced? It is true that the administration could have accepted the interpretation which the Minister now proposes to legalize, but prior to that, it has been contended that in 10,000 cases the interpretation which the Minister now proposes to legalize might not have been the interpretation of the law courts. I do not know why at this last gasp of the session the Minister of Mines and Industries proposes to make it impossible for any other interpretation to be accepted than the one that he now wishes to be placed on the statute book. There must have been an ambiguity. It is proposed now to clear that away, but for what reason the Minister of Posts does not tell us. I am pleased to be known as a supporter of the mining industry, which has rendered immense services to South Africa, and I am prepared to support it as far as is consistent with the principles of equity and justice. There are many ways, of granting relief to the mining industry. This interpretation may mean that the amount which will have to be met by the mining industry is a few thousand pounds per annum; let us do it in some other way, but do not let our sympathy with the industry be exercised at the expense of the blood of those who have worked for It. There can be no possible justification for such a proposal. The mining industry must remain a very big factor in the life of South Africa and it must receive a certain amount of relief if it is going to continue to play the big part it has played in the past. But whenever any suggestion is made to the Minister of Railways and Harbours that a certain measure of relief shall be given to the mines, at the expense of the earnings of his coal rates, he throws up his hands and says it cannot be done. Possibly not. If any suggestion is made to the Minister of Finance that a certain measure of relief should be afforded to the mining industry at the expense of the customs, he throws up his hands and says it cannot be done. But the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who is supporting a Government which now says to the mining industry: “We will grant you that relief at the expense of the flesh and blood of those who have worked for the country”; this is in direct opposition to what he has been enunciating for years past inside and outside the House. How is it possible that he can do that? Why should this be done now? I appeal, with all the earnestness I am capable of, to the House to cry a halt to this interpretation, and to this stopgap and hurried legislation which, for some reason unknown to us, has just been introduced. Is it possible that certain litigation is pending which may have the effect of granting a larger measure of relief to native phthisis victims which otherwise would have been the case if the Bill is not carried? If that is the reason, I think it most immoral and unjust, but I cannot believe that that is so. We have to go very, very gently. I cannot imagine that any forum can support this legislation which will have the effect of forcing these native victims of miners’ phthisis to grant a measure of relief to the mines. The hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) gave reasons why this interpretation is the proper and correct one, and in supporting it he suggested that were any other interpretation decided upon it would increase the amount of compensation to be paid to native sufferers from tuberculosis to an additional extent of at least 50 per cent., and that the maximum amount that has been paid to a native in the secondary stages of phthisis was £170. A man in that stage is an absolute derelict. I do not doubt that the mines are feeling the drain which is being made upon them by taxation and in other ways, but I do not think there is a single mining director who is prepared honestly and conscientiously to say that a measure of relief should be accorded to the industry at the expense of those who are absolutely unable either to give expression to their own opinions on the proposal or to help themselves. An extra 50 per cent, for the most extreme cases would have meant something less than £80 odd per recipient, and in the majority of cases the amount of compensation paid to the native victims of phthisis averages £55. Unless we place this interpretation upon it, this man is likely to get another £26. Can any real sympathetic person justify it? I am not appealing to the sentiment of any people, but can any people of ethical principles force through a Bill like this? I appeal to the Minister to hold the Bill up until there are other means of granting relief. Do not let us rob those who unfortunately are not able to give expression to their views as to the compensation they are entitled to expect on principles of justice and of high morality.

I admit that some of my hon. friends over there did not follow me when I was speaking in Afrikaans. I said then that I was not arguing the merits or the demerits, the rights or the wrongs, of the claim put forward by hon. members over there, but what I did say was that the House clearly intended, in 1919, and also in 1925, rightly or wrongly, to confine the compensation to earnings, which include actual wages only. My hon. friend the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs on the select committee definitely moved an amendment that earnings should include not only actual wages, but the other advantages provided by the employer as part of the remuneration. Hon. members over there see sinister motives. It is nothing of the kind. It is asked, why not wait for the report of the commission? If an hon. member can show me any other clauses of the Bill about which there is a doubt as to their interpretation, I would also consider bringing that forward in a Bill. The administration believed this to be the intention of the House and interpreted it in that way. The whole matter has been dealt with as referring only to actual wages. All we are doing is to remove any doubt there might be in the wording of the Act, and to bring it in conformity with the intention of the House.

Why not let the courts decide; why do you rush in?

Suppose the courts decide against the contention of the board; the House will see straight away that claims for the last eight or nine years can be brought.

If they are alive.

Claims can be brought, certainly, ever since 1919. You can imagine the position. Levies were made only to meet the present circumstances.

I wish you would try to imagine the position of the natives.

That does not concern me at the moment.

I know it does not.

As it did not concern the majority of the House in 1919 and 1925. My hon. friend must acknowledge when he is beaten.

I never do that.

My hon. friend the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs fought the good fight in 1919 and 1925, but lost, and accepted the judgment of the House at that time. This matter can be dealt with by a Miners’ Phthisis Act next year. I have not established the principle. What I have done is to confirm and put beyond doubt the principle accepted by this House in 1919 and 1925. That is all we seek to do, and no more. It is for that reason that I confined my remarks only to that. I am not dealing, in this Bill, with any other matters relating to miners’ phthisis, and for that reason I have not introduced any other consideration. I hope to do so next year, when we have had an opportunity of studying the report of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission. We are dealing here only with two emergencies, and nothing more.

Motion put and the House divided:

I move—

objected.

House to go into committee to-morrow.

Why are the Afrikaans words inserted after the English?

Where certain words have to be printed in the title they have to be in both languages.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments having been agreed to,

The Bill, as amended, was adopted and read a third time.

I move—

This amendment is moved in order to carry out the wishes of the select committee with regard to this matter.

I move—

It is necessary to delete these words in view of an amendment I shall move later on. The idea behind it is that I do not want the local boards to have the power to issue certificates. If two companies come along and apply for transportation certificates, and if the local board investigates and grants a certificate to one company, the other company will be aggrieved, and will have a right of appeal to the central board. If the local boards are advisory, it will only be a recommendation that the company will be appealing against, if my amendments are agreed to. I think the power of the local board should be limited to investigation, and that the power to issue a certificate should lie in the hands of the central board.

I move—

The intention of this amendment is this. Certain cars now have three drop seats instead of two. It is very convenient to have three drop seats. There is plenty of room for the passengers. The intention of this Bill is that an ordinary touring or saloon car should not come under this Act. When we arrive at the stage of having three drop seats, as they have in some other countries, it would be better if provision is made in the Bill for eight instead of seven persons.

I should like to point out that if the suggestion of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) is adopted, the central board will be sitting in appeal on its own judgment, which is, of course, absurd.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) is hardly necessary, seeing that “motor carrier transportation” means transportation over any public road for reward.

I may state in reply to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) that I have no objection, because it seems to me that it is possible you may have a taxi accommodating eight people, including the driver, and we had no intention to include taxis. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) it is as well that the committee should appreciate that if this small amendment to Clause 1 is accepted, a number of consequential amendments will follow. It is unfortunate that, owing to a misunderstanding, the hon. member could not get the amendments on the order paper, and it is important that the committee should appreciate what he has in mind. He desires, so I understand, that the local board should have full power to consider all applications, but that the actual issue of certificates should be done by the central board, and it seems to me there is much to be said for that, because the local transportation board would not then have to keep a clerical staff. They will be in a position to certify to the central board that a certain number of certificates should be issued, and the central board will then issue the certificates. It does not seem to me there will be any loss of time, because the regulations must provide for a period to elapse after the local transportation board has given their decision in case of an appeal to the central board. I do not think the hon. member intends to cut away from the rights of the local board. If I thought so, I would oppose the amendment. The local board should have the full power to decide the number of licences which must be issued. If that is the intention of the hon. member (Mr. Brown), I do not see any serious objection to it.

It is a pity the Minister has changed his views. The question was fully discussed in select committee, and the Minister refused to accept the suggestion then. If he is going to accept it now, we shall have to reconsider a number of clauses in the Bill, which may occupy a good deal of time. If you read Clause 6, it is clear that in every case they must have records, even if this particular function is taken away from them. They must have full records and full staff. I do not see where you gain by the change, and the people themselves will suffer, because, I take it, the central board will be in Johannesburg. Every little matter will have to be referred to Johannesburg before you can get a certificate. We know what these delays mean. I would ask the Minister not to go back on what was done in select committee. If the Minister adheres to his intention, it will mean we shall have to reconsider several of the other clauses, which will delay matters, and perhaps lead in the end to having a worse Bill than at present.

I have no desire to go back on what was done in select committee. I pointed out to the committee what was intended under these amendments. If hon. members realize that this means further financial burdens on the applicants for motor carrier certificates, I will ask the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) not to press his amendment. I do not want to increase the cost of the local transportation boards.

I hope that the Minister will not accept this amendment, because it will cause tremendous delay in as much as there will be one central board for the whole Union, to which the local boards will have to send the applications. What will be the advantage of that? It is the local bodies that give the decision, and the central board will accept the decision of the local boards. I do not think that it is necessary to pass this amendment.

One appreciates the Minister’s intentions not to put too heavy a burden on the motor users, but I can tell the Minister that the motor users are prepared to pay their fair share for the upkeep of this system—they would much rather pay a little more and have justice. I hope the Minister will not agree to vitiate the whole principle of this Bill in the matter of local control by agreeing to the suggestion of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown). I must say, it came as a great shock to me that the Minister said what he did, because it went against the principle accepted by the select committee. We do not mind paying our fair share of what is necessary to ensure proper control of this traffic, but we do not want the Minister to pare down our expenditure by £500, and put us in the hands of interests over which we have no control.

I should also like to point out that I am opposed to the amendment, because I think that the local boards are much letter informed on such questions than the central board. Moreover, the central board will not always be sitting, and, supposing that they sit once or twice a month, it will mean great delay to people who are anxious for immediate decision. I cannot, therefore, agree with the amendment.

I am bound to disagree with the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) when he says that my suggestion disagrees with the principle we accepted in the select committee. I believe the hon. member for Turffontein was one of those who suggested that the amendment had better be left over to move in the House. The principle of the Bill is in no way affected by this amendment. What we are going to have is a number of little boards issuing certificates throughout the country, and there is no need for a central board. What is a central board for? The principle as outlined in Clause 5 for the central board, and Clause 6 for the local board, is identical. We thus have two bodies in the country which are identical, and this will lead to chaos. If we are going to control the traffic in the country, let it be controlled from a centre. In this respect, when it comes to licensing these people, these can be obtained in one centre where the records are kept. With this dual control there will be an enormous amount of chaos and difficulty in administering the Act.

I was not a member of the select committee, but I think if the hon. member will read Section 6, sub-clauses (c) and (d), he will find that his arguments are off the point. I presume he has read the Bill, otherwise he would not get up and criticize it. One of the reasons why we are induced to accept the Bill before us is that local boards are provided for and control will not be all centralized. A local board is in a better position to decide in regard to the traffic to be allowed than the central board. Sub-clause (c) says, “and in its discretion to grant or refuse such applications wholly or in part.” Subclause (d) says, that they can suspend or revoke any such certificate. Supposing a motor carrier’s licence is deemed to be forfeited. Is it right that he should be left untrammelled, or in suspense during the time his case is being investigated by the central board? I think this is clearly a case where the hon. member’s amendment will militate very much against the acceptability of this Bill. I feel that we must keep as much local control as possible, and these two sub-clauses are what we must have.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Railways and Harbours and Mr. Stuttaford put and agreed to.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Brown put and negatived.

I do not propose to move the remainder of the amendments I intended to move.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I move—

I think this matter has been fully discussed already. I wish to impress upon the committee that it is more in accord with the decisions of the committee than with the decision of the Minister. If the Minister’s board were to stand as the central board we are wasting time and expense. It will be far more simple for him to appoint the Railway Board as the central board for road transportation. Some exception was taken yesterday because it was anticipated there would be difficulty in getting these bodies to come to a conclusion as to who should be appointed. That is why the last part of this amendment has been tabled—

We have by this amendment thrown the responsibility of all that is done by the board by arranging that the Governor-General shall appoint. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, because it will satisfy the people far more than his own suggestion, and it is closely in conformity with the suggestions of the commission.

I regret it will not be possible to accept this amendment. My chief objection is that under this amendment we do away with all parliamentary control. Under this amendment the board will consist of five members. One will be nominated by the Governor-General, as chairman, and one will represent the railway interests, and as such may be taken to be responsible to Parliament through the Minister. The remaining three members are not nominated by the Governor-General-in-Council. He formally consents to their appointment, it is true, but they will be nominated by the respective bodies. One will be appointed by the South African Agricultural Union. What does nomination mean? It means that these bodies will nominate and the Governor-General will be forced to accept that nomination. Clearly under this amendment moved by the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), all parliamentary responsibility ceases because there will be three members who are individually responsible to the different bodies, and two of them responsible to the Minister. Consequently, the Minister can take no responsibility in Parliament for the actions of the board. That is my main objection. I ask the hon. member for Sea Point why he has not included the automobile interests? If the hon. member had any experience of these matters, he would know that the Chamber of Industries is not prepared to be joined up with the Chamber of Commerce. Their interests are often diametrically opposed. These two bodies have always held that they should be regarded as two separate entities. To my mind parliamentary responsibility is essential, more especially seeing that the board will, inter alia, deal with the interests of the state represented by £143,000,000 of the taxpayers’ money.

What about other interests?

I have no desire not to recognize their rights, but that is a different question to allowing these bodies to nominate members of the board. I regret therefore that I cannot accept the amendment as it would introduce a principle which would be fatal from the point of view of the criticism by Parliament, and raise all kinds of difficulties with interests which are not represented but which will claim that they also should be represented on the board.

What does the Minister mean by “parliamentary control”? What the Minister is really seeking is not parliamentary control, but executive control over the private interests of thousands of people. Does he realize how many people are affected? On this year’s estimates provision is made for 60,000 Europeans and 25,000 natives employed on the railways. That is the total number employed in offices, stores, workshops and the maintenance of the railways as well as the running staff. What is the position of motor transport? In 1923 there were just under 2,000 transport vehicles in the Union—vans, buses and lorries; in 1928 the number was 11,692, or a progressive yearly increase of 2,000 vehicles. Assuming that each vehicle employs two Europeans, then there are 22,000 people employed on these vehicles alone without including taxi-cabs, while other persons engaged in the motor industry are employed in offices, repair shops and so on. This has happened within a few years, but what will be the position ten years hence? You will have just as large a number of people employed in motor transport as you have on the railways. The amendment proposed will do no injustice to the railway employees: but it will ensure the adequate recognition of this other great interest. The Minister says he cannot agree to an impartial board because there would then be no parliamentary control. But surely the control which he is seeking is unnecessary to ensure the livelihood of all the people employed on the railways. The board we suggest would operate more successfully in the interests of the railwaymen because it would take a broader view of our whole economic development. We are going a long way indeed to strike a blow at the econo-much future of South Africa if we place executive control like this in the hands of the Minister.

Having regard to the functions of the board, it should be a strong and representative body and, as far as possible, should be free from political interests. I know the difficulty in the practical working of our parliamentary machine, but the Minister should try to make the board free from any party political influence. I am sorry the Minister cannot accept the amendment proposed by the member for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl), so I will move the following amendment—

The Minister will still have full responsibility as he will nominate the members and they will be responsible to him and through him to Parliament. It will be something in the nature of a gesture of good faith on the part of the Minister to agree to this, for there is a feeling in the country that with a board of three, the board will be more or less on the lines of the Railway Board. I feel sure that in accepting the amendment the Minister will encourage the belief in his desire to make this an impartial and representative body.

With regard to the question of parliamentary control, it must not be forgotten that there is a good deal of control which may be described as “executive.” Why could not a certain form of parliamentary control be ensured by making it obligatory on the board to submit an annual report to Parliament in the same way as the Railway Board does. Parliament can always amend an Act; it always has the last say in all these matters, and, therefore, looking at it strictly from the point of view of parliamentary control, it can be exercised just as well on the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), which I hope the Minister will accept, as under the Minister’s suggestion. Whenever anybody suggests that the motor interests and trade should have a fair deal, we are told, “Be very careful, £143,000,000 of your money is at stake.” The railway is not going to lose all this money because of certain forms of transport. That £143,000,000 is safe if instead of the Railway Department putting its hands up it should put its fists up. They have to understand that when they come up against competition, they have to fight, and that is what they do not seem to want to do. They want to go on just as before. That is not likely to be to the advantage of the country at all. We are going to do very much better if we see that the railways have to make a fight. It should be a fair fight, and neither they nor the motor industry should not be handicapped unfairly. It seems to me that, under the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point, any question will be judicially considered. The Minister seems to think that that board will look at everything from the motor transport point of view. They will do nothing of the kind, and will be sensible to the £143,000,000 invested in the railways. There is an ample safeguard that such a board will give the railways and the motor people a fair deal. I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision, and accept the amendment.

Do I understand that the view of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) is that the Railway Department should go all out and fight the motor interests, because let me assure him, if that were done, there would arise such a howl on the part of the motor interests that this House could not withstand it. Does the hon. member realize that we have such resources that if we desire to go on the roads, we could drive off all private motor enterprise?

Why don’t you?

Do I understand hon. members suggest it? I have never contemplated doing it, because I recognise that private enterprises have put money into their vehicles, and have just as much right to be protected as the Railway Administration. When the hon. member talks of putting up our hands when we should put up our fists, I can assure him we are quite capable to do so if that were our policy. It is a question of fair competition, and that is all we are asking.

That is all we ask.

That is not what the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) asked. I think it would be wrong for the state with its resources to endeavour to drive all private enterprise off the roads. But then there should be no reflection on the Railway Administration that we are not doing our duty. It is our policy with the extension of our motor service, to let them serve as feeder services. I have set my face against the introduction of competition against ourselves. As to the following Bill, I am looking forward to the warm support of the hon. member for Newlands.

And pay taxation.

That is a matter with which we can deal when we come to it.

I do not know that we are going to have fair and free competition with a board based on these provisions in the Bill. I think if the Minister desires to have that free and fair competition he would rather agree to the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), because at least outside people will be introduced to have some say in the competition which will exist between private enterprise and the railways. In fact, the commission has reported so, and it is supported by the chambers of commerce, and joint municipal authorities, and when bodies like that support the idea, I do not think the Minister should force a measure like this through the House. He should have some regard for these public bodies, and accept the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point. I do not see how he will have free and fair competition when he appoints a board which will dictate the terms— and they will be the railway terms. Coming from the Minister of Railways and Harbours, and seeing he will appoint this board, we can only expect unfair competition from me railways, and the whole of the voices of this side of the House are raised against that. There are many instances in which we can see this measure will work harshly, as far as private interests are concerned, against the real interests of the country and in the long run against the interests of the railways.

The Minister, in reply to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), talked about a “fair fight.” Why then is it not possible for the railways to compete with private enterprise on a fair basis? If you reckon the upkeep of roads, to which the administration contributes very little, and that all the administration’s supplies and equipment come in at cost price, it is difficult to see why the Government cannot compete with private enterprise. If it is to be a “fair” fight, which it cannot be so long as the administration has those advantages then let it pay all the reasonable dues which private enterprise has to pay. With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), I am sorry that the Minister has committed himself so early to a refusal to accept it. That amendment, if it did nothing else would, if passed, inspire some sort of confidence in the countryside that the Government do not mean to crush all private enterprise. The Minister ridiculed the appointment of a member of the board representing two interests of commerce and industry jointly. Under the proposed amendment he has the right, if they fail to come to an agreement on a representative, to appoint a member to represent the interests concerned. As for the farming interest, the farmers are going to be very much perturbed if they feel there is going to be no opportunity of representation on the board controlling road transport. You can tell them what you like about your concern about their interests, but if they have to pay more for the transportation of their produce they will not believe you. The appointment of their representative is a simple matter. We have our South African agricultural union, which is fully representative of the enlightened agricultural community. Thus you have the two main bodies I have mentioned which can quite easily come to an arrangement. In your third nominated member you have a representative of your provincial administrations. In that member you have a quasi-Government nominee, in that the provincial administrations, more or less, follow the Government of the day. I cannot too strongly commend to the Minister the reversal of his rather hasty decision of a moment ago. If you accept the amendment you go a long way to make this Bill acceptable, and give it every chance of being launched under decent auspices.

The Minister has protested that he has never departed from the Road Commission’s report, it is difficult to understand this when, with respect to a fundamental matter like the constitution of the central board, he departs in every instance from the advice which his own commission gave him. First of all, the commission laid it down that the board should be free from political control. The Minister, this afternoon, has just told us he will have nothing to do with a hoard which is not subject to parliamentary control. Now parliamentary control, as we all know, means political control, and political influence. The report again states that the evidence throughout the country was most emphatic that this board should not be constituted on the same lines as the railway board, and yet this proposed board reproduces the railway board with all its worst features. The report goes on to say that the Government would, in any case, be able to exercise considerable influence on the board, and that the activities of the board could he controlled through the chairman. Now we have the right to ask is the Minister going to stand by the commission’s report or is it not? If he does not intend to adopt the opinions and advice of the men he sent around the country gathering evidence, then it was a waste of time and money to send them around. If he had his own ideas, all the time, as to what he was going to do, why on earth did he appoint this board?

I regret that the Minister has turned the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) down so summarily and so finally. I argued strongly in favour of that amendment last night, and it represents to me a solution for the troubles the Minister will soon be up against if the Bill passes without it. Here, in this House, he has a strong majority. He can force his will through, but it is only when this Bill has been passed and becomes law, that his difficulties will thicken upon him, and he will find himself up against not a minority in this House, but a very powerful feeling all over the country.

And he will pay the penalty.

But that will be very little consolation to the Minister, or to my hon. friend opposite when the penalty has got to be paid. In view of the Minister’s very strong statement my hon. friend, the member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) came forward with his much milder scheme, which he adumbrated last night. I understood from the Minister last night that he looked with a good deal of favour on that proposal; in fact, he toyed a good deal with the idea of accepting that suggestion last night. He is the strong man of the Government, and I am sure that what he said last night holds good still. But we would like to know. We have now these two amendments before us. The Minister has said nothing in condemnation, or in praise of the second amendment, and it would influence some of us on this side of the House if the Minister would tell us that he is prepared to accept that amendment.

My difficulty is really to understand where we are with our friends on the other side. Just let me remind the committee what we have before us. In the select committee we had a fully worked-out scheme proposed by the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl)—a system of provincial boards, and a central board superimposed upon the provincial boards—

That was voted down by you.

Yes, but surely my hon. friends were not going to be discouraged by a mere vote in committee. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) says these provincial boards are excellent; but now comes forward with a new proposal adopted by the hon. member for Sea Point, which differs from the scheme previously submitted. I would have thought that if principles were at the back of my hon. friends over there, they would have stood by their guns. What do hon. members opposite really want?

We want your commission’s report.

I think that in view of the great divergence of opinion on the other side, it is far better for us to retain the clause as it stands, and I have already given my reasons. I think it is unnecessary to do so again. As to what was said by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) I have, indicated the objections—that the cost would be high, that the board would be too large and finally I pointed out the difficulties connected with the representation of separate bodies. Hon. members are so enamoured of this report. Why do they not adopt its recommendations? I am pointing out that while hon. members say they accept the recommendation of the report made by three members they do not accept the whole recommendation. The best safeguard, after all, is parliamentary criticism.

How are they going: to do that?

If a political board is appointed, there will be criticism. In the case of the work of the Perishable Products Export Control Board, it has been so successful that no question has arisen about their annual reports. That board consists of six members, of whom three are nominated by the Governor-general, and three by the interests concerned.

Whatever we did was done with a view to negotiating with the Minister. The impression which the Minister has tried to leave is that we are vaccillating. We have changed, but it is with a view to coming to terms with the Minister, and the Minister now tries to leave the impression that we do not know what we really want. We now make a further suggestion to try to meet him, and he is taking advantage to make propaganda in this way. The Minister cannot expect us to treat with him again, if he makes capital out of it.

In appointing the members of the central board, why should some only, out of the many varied interests concerned, be considered? The Road Motor Transportation Commission emphasized the fact that the competition against the railways was most unfair, because many of the employees were working for low wages and for excessive hours. It is reasonable, therefore, that the trade unions also should be asked to nominate. On the other hand, to consider all the interests involved and to appoint members on the central board for each of those varied interests, would mean the appointment of an impossibly unwieldy board.

I am sorry that the Minister has taken up this attitude. It has been the constant endeavour of the select commitee to find a solution to what is admittedly the whole problem of the Bill. When he charged us just now with having varied our position, I say it has been simply to try to meet the opposition which the hon. Minister and members on his side of the House have constantly raised whenever points have been put forward by us. We have stressed the point that we consider that in the central board various interests should be represented. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) has brought up the point of drivers. That is not dealt with in this Bill. In any case the question of the employees of these organizations is a matter to he dealt with by the Wage Board. When the Minister asked us where we stand in this matter. I say he must recognize the fact that there is a strong body of opinion in this country that feels that the provincial councils should have had direct representation on the central board. When he definitely turned that down, we were faced with the position of trying to bring the Bill into conformity with the recommendations of this report. That has been the endeavour of members on this side of the House the whole time. They strongly recommend that the central board shall be entirely non-party and non-sectional. The Minister admits, by appointing this board, that he wants control and influence there. By creating this board of three he will do more to cause the whole Bill to be a failure than anything else. He will alienate sympathy right throughout the country. I wish to move the following amendment—

I can see no necessity at all for differentiation between the period of service of the chairman and the other members of the board. It is quite conceivable that the Minister might appoint the chairman as a life member of that board. That would be an impossible position. Not being a member of the service, he may go on to such a board for life, and when it is desired to retire him, there are no means by which he can be retired. I think the Minister is making a very great mistake in retaining an indefinite period of service in the Bill for the chairman. He has the power in his own hands to re-appoint the chairman after three years. If he deletes those words, that gives the Minister full power to continue the continuity of service that he is anxious to obtain. Although the Minister did not accept the amendment in select committee, I hope he will accept it now.

I should like the House to at least take notice of one point, that is the conversion of the hon. Minister to the principle of parliamentary control. Earlier in the session strong remonstrances were addressed to the Government on the habit they have developed recently of providing for the creations of boards and other authorities which stand completely outside parliamentary control. There has been a good deal of persistence shown by hon. members on this side of the House in the endeavour to bring that fact home to the Government. We now find that the hon. Minister, in the last few days of the session, stands up and more than once has repeated that he is extremely anxious to see the work of this board and the whole of its actions subject to parliamentary control. I am sorry to say that, although I see a glimmering of a conversion there, I am not sure that the hon. Minister really means what he says. If we accept the hon. Minister’s assertion and trust to seeing Rome degree of parliamentary control let us see what will happen. Let us assume that the Bill goes through in its present form. Take a practical case. Take the case of a motor-owner who has been running a service of Pullman omnibuses between the towns “A” and “B,” at fair prices and under conditions which have completely out generalled the railway company. The board, let us argue, puts this unfortunate owner off the road by making him charge double the fare he is charging now.

They have no power to fix the rates.

I will deal with that later. Let us stick to the fact that Parliament will have some control over the matter. I will assume that that motor owner comes to this House and endeavours to have the facts of his case made known. I suppose the only way in which that can be done will be during an appropriation debate or a budget debate, when someone would stand up and ventilate these facts. That is where we endeavour to apply the principle of parliamentary control. The Minister will then reply, “I have nothing whatever to do with this board.” He has said that before about the railway board and other little babies that he has brought into the world. He will say: “I do not control it.” He will say that if the board thinks it proper to put motor owner “A” out of business, and you wish to make representations, you must go to the board and they may listen to you.” That is the answer. Yet this afternoon when this committee is endeavouring to get some such principle included in the Bill, which may serve as a guide to the board, the Minister turns round and says: “I do not desire anything of that kind. I do not want that power in the Bill. I desire to preserve parliamentary control and the right of Parliament to interfere and criticize.” Yet he knows full well that, once the Bill becomes law, it gives the power to the board to guillotine every motor owner it may tackle on the supposed ground that his transportation service should be curtailed. I say that we should realize our responsibilities in this matter. We should really persist in making that point and the responsibility for this policy perfectly clear to the country. It is singular, if you examine this Bill, that nowhere is there the slightest indication by what principle the board will consider these important matters which may come before it. Clause 5 deals with the functions of the board, and you will find in sub-clause (b) that the board may determine the volume and nature of motor carrier transportation which shall be permitted to operate over any proclaimed transportation route. Not a single principle is put in there whereby the board is to be guided. It is to be unfettered and uncontrolled and, according to the Minister, eventually subject to the control by Parliament which I have endeavoured to show is absolutely futile in its effect. This Bill is nothing more than a measure designed to give the administration the right to cut out all competition with it. Why does the Minister persist in his attempt to becloud the issue? Why does he not say quite frankly:” That is the real object of the Bill.” His opposition to the amendment shows that he declines to be fettered in the slightest degree in the selection of the board, and that he objects to the introduction of any element which would give some protection to existing motor transport. The responsibility should be assigned to the Minister, and the country should know that he obdurately refused to listen to the reasonable requests that have been put forward. The people whose income may be cut off, whose livelihood may be wrecked, and whose businesses may be taken away, all because the railway administration fails to conduct its business in a proper way, are to be subjected to the guillotine the Minister proposes to erect. I hope the obstinacy of the Minister will be made known to the country at large, and when, in due time, he is met with the inevitable storm of indignation, it will be understood that the Minister is probably the most autocratic Minister of Railways we have ever had, despite all his talk of parliamentary control.

I understand that the only objection the Minister has to the amendment is on the ground of parliamentary control and expense. After all, what does parliamentary control mean? Does it mean the sort of control Parliament has over the railway board? We have had an instance of that in the case of a young man in the railway service, who satisfied the examiners for an appointment but was turned down after passing satisfactorily by the railway board. Parliament protects but has no control whatever over that, and a gross act of injustice goes unpunished. Then the Fruit Exchange Board gave the Minister of Agriculture certain advice as regards the type and quality of fruit to be sent abroad. The Minister steps in, ignores the board and demands that sour oranges of an inferior type shall be exported. It is true that they were labelled “suur” and people overseas did not know what “suur” stood for and so bought them thinking that they were a new type of orange, like “Jaffa” oranges. In these instances Parliament protested but parliamentary control was found to be non-existent. But if under this Bill a central board is appointed with proper powers and a sufficient number of representative men on it, the public, at any rate, will have some protection. As for the expense, in 1928 there were on the road some 12,000 of these particular vehicles which will come under the control of the board. Allowing a natural rate of increase, there are probably to-day not fewer than 17,000 of these vehicles on the road. Supposing the application fee is fixed at 10s. per vehicle, the Minister will have an income of £8,500 per year. What does the Minister propose to pay the members of the board? Are they to be paid on the basis of the railway or diamond board? On the other hand, we have in our mind payment more or less equivalent with that received by members of the land boards.

That is very small.

I remember when I served on the land board, the honour was considered to be a sufficient reward, but to-day, evidently, we are to judge honour and duty by the amount of cash attached to a position.

I was extremely sorry to hear the remarks of the Minister of Railways. I remember when he introduced the Bill, he asked the House not to treat it in any party spirit. I am a new member, and took the Minister at his word, and did what I could to deal with the subject in an entirely non-party way. In doing that, we have made various suggestions and have gone out of our way to meet the Minister, but he has refused to budge an inch. Now he gibes at us in a purely party spirit because we have been so foolish as to try and meet him. I do not think the Minister is doing us justice. He stated that he had no objection to accepting the amendment in principle, his only objection being on the question of cost. I have assured him that that is an objection i.e. need not consider, because the people who are to pay the piper will not object to pay their fair share of the cost of the board. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Maj. Richards) has pointed out that even at 10s. per registration the income coming to the board will be £8,500 on the present day basis. It will soon be £17,000 when motor transport is double what it is to-day and even in his most extravagant estimates the Minister does not expect this board to cost more than £8,000. What objection has the Minister then to this proposal? He said it would be difficult to control such a committee.

As far as movements are concerned.

I am inclined to think it was the control of their activities rather than movements.

The cat came out of the bag.

Does the Minister realize that in this Bill, as it is worded, there is nothing to prevent the appointment of the general manager of railways as chairman with two system managers as the other members. All we ask is, that he shall give us in this measure some safeguard to the public, so that he cannot simply turn this into the railway board itself or a board consisting of railway officials. All we ask is that the board shall be representative of interests. We give the widest latitude. The Minister is making the gravest mistake. It is true he can force it through the House. We have it on the authority of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux)—evidently an authority on these matters—that it is going through in its present form. We want to have public opinion at the back of the law; we can pass laws if we like, but they will not prove effective if public opinion is not at the back of them. We can only have public opinion behind this if they see that Parliament is sincere in desiring an impartial and representative board.

I want just to point out, and I do not know whether the Minister has considered this aspect of the matter, that in the Bill there is a right of appeal from a decision of a local board to the central board. It is quite possible you may have a unanimous decision of a local board and not a unanimous decision of the central board on the appeal; two members of the latter can upset a unanimous decision of the former. The administration may not agree with the unanimous decision of a local board, because in the definition “person” includes the railway administration which gives them the right to appeal. It is clear that such a state of affairs should not be tolerated whereby two members of the central board can upset the unanimous decision of the local board, and it is an argument, undoubtedly, for bringing the board up to five members. The Minister will find if the number of members is increased it will give a larger amount of confidence. I cannot understand why the Minister will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock). Surely these authorities, the provincial administrations, should be represented which have to maintain the roads and the bridges. They have a direct interest in the amount of traffic that goes over the roads. If the central board gives a licence to a six-ton lorry, and it has to pass over bridges which have been built to carry only three-ton lorries, these authorities are directly interested. Surely no one will suggest that the users of the railways, which are such a developing factor in the country, have not a predominant claim for representation on the central board, and I am referring to agriculture. Trade and commerce are combined under the “other users” of the railway, and the choice of these individuals is left entirely in the hands of the Minister. I cannot see what possible objection there is. Is it that it is more difficult to control five men instead of three, because that is the suspicion that arises in one’s mind at once; and these three mentioned in the Bill as to be appointed by the Minister have no designation whatever and are not responsible to any interest except to the Minister of Railways. The motor transport business is still in its infancy in this country, and just look and see how it is developing and increasing by leaps and bounds in recent years. It is not only because of joy-riding, but because there is a legitimate demand in this country for that form of transport. The agricultural community who have received great benefits from the railways in the opening up of the country, are some of the biggest users of motor transport. When I find that 30,000 bales of wool were carried to the market of East London by motor lorries, it shows that the farmers are deriving a tremendous benefit from it, and that it has become popular with them. The lorry picks up the wool on their farms and delivers it. One of the reasons why the lorry has succeeded in a particular case that I am acquainted with is that whereas it took seven days by train for a man to get his wool down to East London, it takes only three hours by motor lorry, and when he sent it by rail he lost the market and suffered very serious loss. It is these delays that have been taking place on the railways that are making them unpopular. I do feel with the Minister in his fears of this motor competition, and we are just as anxious as he is to see this Bill through. I want to confirm what the hon. member for Turffontein said about the Minister asking us in select committee to treat this Bill wholly in a non-party spirit. We put all our cards on the table. We had met the Minister privately, and discussed the matter with him, and we find now that he is turning round and throwing gibes at us at not having come to a definite decision as to the constitution of the central hoard when he knows full well that all the members on this side were anxious to arrive at an amicable arrangement in a non-party spirit and the thanks that we get to-day is the ridiculing of our various efforts and proposals, when all those proposals were made in a spirit of compromise with a view to coming to an amicable and satisfactory arrangement. I still feel that a central board of five independent in character and representative of interests would be far more acceptable to the country than the proposals of the Minister in the Bill which does not carry out the very definite recommendation of the commission.

In view of the appeal by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) and the hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) I am prepared to agree to increase the number from three to five. There is undoubtedly something in what the hon. member for Turffontein has said, that a larger number would broaden the choice of the Government in making appointments. I am sorry my hon. friend the member for Sea Point is rather touchy about my remarks with regard to the different proposals of the Opposition.

You know perfectly well that it is only to try to meet you.

Do not let us go unnecessarily into the matter.

Do you definitely exclude railway servants?

It has never been my intention to appoint anyone from the railway staff.

Whether the board consists of three, five or ten members, if it is unrestricted I do not see any difference. The question here is the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock). If the Minister will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point, there is the alternative of the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein, but what is the use of piling up members when they are unrestricted in their functions, and the Minister is unrestricted in his power of appointment. We are going to divide the House on the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point, and afterwards on the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein.

My bias right through this discussion has been entirely in favour of the railways. I have recognized all along that we have a duty laid upon us to protect the railways from unfair competition, but I cannot but express surprise at the attitude of the Minister this afternoon. I listened to his second reading speech yesterday, and it was plain to me that when he approached the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) he threw out the very broadest of ministerial hints that he was prepared to accept that amendment. He said that he had no objection to it on principle at all. His two objections to it were founded on questions of expediency. One was the question of expense, and the other was that of parliamentary control. Having decided not to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point, I cannot for the life of me understand why he has wasted the time of the committee this afternoon by haggling as he has done over the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein. I listened with astonishment to his attitude, having regard to what he said yesterday afternoon, because if ever I heard a Minister foreshadow the graceful acceptance of a sort of half-way house between his original proposal and the proposal of the Opposition, I heard it yesterday afternoon. In regard to the first question, the question of expense, he has now said that if the industry is prepared to bear the expense then he is satisfied. The first difficulty therefore disappears. What is there in his second objection? He says there will not he an adequate measure of parliamentary control.

That falls away.

Then what particular difficulty of detail now remains?

I find it most difficult to repeat the same thing over and over again, but perhaps the hon. member was not in the House when I indicated the great difficulty which arises with regard to the representation of certain interests. Three members of the commission recommended a board consisting of a member nominated by the agricultural interests, one by the commercial community, one by the industrial community, one by the four provincial councils, one by the automobile interests, one by the railway and harbour administration, and a chairman nominated by the Government. That makes seven members. But it was pointed out by the remaining members of the commission that many other interests would also claim representation. They mentioned divisional councils, the motor traders association, municipalities and workers’ unions. The matter is not as simple as the hon. member thinks. Once you start giving representation to certain particular interests you are in difficulties at once. I have given the assurance that we will appoint a board which will deal with this question on broad national lines.

On what basis?

A whole-time chairman with part-time members. This board will meet and deal with these problems and come to decisions, but as I have already indicated over and over again, Parliament surely is the body to criticize the Government if the Government were to make unsound appointments. I hope the hon. member will now appreciate my difficulty.

I thank the Minister for his careful and courteous explanation. Speaking quite impartially, may I say that he did not convince me, and may I give my reasons. When he appoints the board he will not put the names in a hat. He will have to formulate some principle on which these appointments will be made. He cannot give representation to every interest which directly or indirectly is affected, I quite agree, but he would have to consider appointing, say, representatives for agriculture, industry and mining if the board is to be a representative one, and not one chosen haphazard. Why not satisfy the public about the criteria on which the choice will be made? I cannot understand the Minister refusing to allow so elementary a safeguard as that of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock). I quite agree with the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). What do we care whether the board is three or five or seven if the unfettered choice is left to the Minister? In the case of the Reserve Bank, it is laid down that there must be one director representing agriculture, one representing industry, and, I think, a third representing commerce. It is the Government which nominates these directors, but its choice is fettered by these words. Here is a matter which stirs people more than that of the Reserve Bank. The whole of the motor world is in a ferment over the question of this clause. If the Minister could accept this amendment much of that ferment would be alleviated. The Minister can do no harm so long as he retains in his own hands the nomination of these people. Let him stick to Reserve Bank procedure. I think the Bill could be put through committee in an hour if the Minister would agree to accept this amendment.

I move—

I am prepared to meet hon. members opposite, but if this is not considered to be a concession on my part, I propose to retain the number at “three”.

The question of merely increasing the board from three to five seems to me not to effect the object we have in view. If the board is increased to five, I agree to that, and we shall proceed to move the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), and if that is defeated, then the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock).

Question put: That the word “three”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the committee divided:

I move—

I think this amendment will recommend itself to the House. It provides that the members of the local boards shall be eligible for reappointment.

At the end of Clause 1, there is a consequential amendment to the same effect as the amendment to Clause 2 (1). The words should be added “none of whom shall be officers or servants of the Administration”,

Amendments put and agreed to.

I should like to ask the Minister if he knows how many local boards he is going to have. Is there going to be a local board for Durban and Pietermaritzburg, say, or for the whole of the Natal province?

It is difficult to say what will be done in actual practice. The central board will deal with the whole matter. They wilt no doubt give special attention to areas where there is competition. There will be large sections of the Union which will not be touched by this Bill at all.

I understand that the Minister’s idea is to keep the number of local boards down as low as possible. There is no need to have a board on every transportation route; one board will be quite sufficient for Natal, for instance.

I cannot allow any further discussion on that point.

We want to know what the policy of the board is in regard to the appointment of local boards.

If there is to be a local board in every area, there will be constant appeals, and the public will be irritated. We think one board in Natal would be quite sufficient, but in the Cape the position would be different, as it is more widespread and disconnected, and possibly two, or, perhaps, three, local boards may be considered necessary, but ven then the fewer the better.

The problem down here is very cute. What is the Minister’s idea of how are the control of a Cape Peninsula local board would extend, say to Paarl or Worcester?

It is impossible for me to reply a these points at this stage, as one of the functions of the board is “to investigate any latter relating to motor carrier transportation a the Union.” This question must, therefore, be investigated in the first instance by the central board, which must then submit recommendations to the Minister. The central board may come to the conclusion that one local board may be adequate for the whole of the Western Province, or one board for the Cape Peninsula, and another board for the remaining portion of the Western Province. Surely hon. members cannot expect me to commit myself on these matters at this stage.

The other day the Minister said his idea was that there should be one board for the area between Cape Town and Worcester. Is that a final decision?

No.

Many people want provincial boards. The Ministers object may be achieved if he had as near as possible provincial boards, instead of a large number of smaller local boards throughout the country. The provincial executives have already impressed that upon the Minister. Can that desire not be fully met without sacrificing any of the objects of the Minister? In a small area like Natal, surely a provincial board would be more effective than a number of smaller boards, one operating for Durban and another for Maritzburg, one for south coast and another for the north coast. If he fell into line with the recommendations of the inter-provincial committee’s report on this point, he would remove a great deal of difficulty, and also opposition to the measure. As far as Natal is concerned, one board should be sufficient.

The Minister is not bound by Clause 5 (a), as he is not compelled to ask the board to investigate.

I might be able now to express an opinion regarding the number of local boards in the Western Province, but cannot do so about the whole Union as I do not know what the position is. Until there has been an investigation, I cannot give a definite reply with regard to places where local boards will be established. We must leave it to the central board to investigate matters.

I do not think the Minister quite appreciates the position. I do not think it is any hon. member’s suggestion that he gives an opinion in detail. What I think the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) asked was what was the policy of the Minister on the matter—to have a few boards covering a large area, or many boards covering small areas? The appointment of the local boards does not lie with the central board, but with the Minister.

Is the Minister getting information from local sources as to how many boards are to be set up? Is it going to be based on any particular local demands? In the first instance the boards are going to be set up by the Minister alone. Suppose there is a general consensus of opinion in Natal that one board is sufficient for the whole of that province; is it within the Minister’s discretion to override that? If there is to be a local board to deal with the route from Greytown to Newcastle, where is it to be localized?

Let me say again that I think it would be most improper for me at this stage to indicate a cut-and-dried policy. Hon. members must agree with me, it would be far better for the central board to investigate the whole question. What I had in mind was that the central board might make an investigation of four typical areas in each of the four provinces. Transportation boards would be set up, and there would probably be appeals to the central board. After dealing with the whole position, the board might lay down certain general principles for the guidance of other boards. That is only an idea I have, but I cannot commit myself or the board.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I see that certain difficulties may arise in the city of Cape Town, which is rather peculiarly situated. We have a number of small townships on the outskirts of the city, and because there are services to these places from the city it should be made quite clear that a local board can carry on its functions outside the boundaries of the city. I want to propose an amendment to the effect that for the purposes of this section the boundaries of the city of Cape Town shall be considered to be within a circle of 25 miles radius, the centre of which shall be the City Hall of Cape Town, and shall include the Cape Peninsula. If other hon. members think there are other towns in a similar situation they may put those cases forward. I cannot speak on that point. Surely the intention is that a bus service from the city running to these townships shall be controlled by a local board for that city. There may be other cities, like Johannesburg and Durban, to which the same point might apply. I want to ask the Minister whether that section will not make for greater efficiency. I move—

Can the Minister make clear to us the meaning of the phrase “municipal council, borough council, or town council”? I raise that point because there is some obscurity. “Borough council” has been put in to meet the specific case of Durban, which is the only one of its kind. In the Transvaal the phrase as printed would apply only to town councils; there are no municipal councils strictly so-called in the Transvaal. There is, however, one city council in fact and one in prospect. It is also not clear to me whether this clause is meant to cover village councils. Village management boards in the Cape Province correspond to health committees in the Transvaal. I would like to suggest to the Minister, for his consideration, that he accept an amendment here, leaving out the words “borough council or town council”, and that he subsequently insert in the definition clause a definition of “municipal council”.

I move—

I want to ask what is going to be the position of the local board appointed for an area which includes a town or municipality and a large outside area. Under sub-clause (1) it is provided that the administrator shall nominate two members, but it was intended that where the interests of a municipality are affected, the municipality should have the power to appoint one. Take the case of the Peninsula. Supposing a board were appointed to cover an area of 25 miles. That board would be appointed under sub-section (1), and the municipality of Cape Town would not have any person on that board, although all the traffic is in the municipal area.

I have no objection to the acceptance of the amendment by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock). With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) that point has already been considered by the law adviser, but in view of what the hon. member has said I will again consult him. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock), under sub-section (3) there will be consultation between the administrator and the local body, and that seems to me to meet the case.

We have a large number of motor omnibus services running out of the centre of the city of Cape Town. Will the Minister make it perfectly clear that in a case like that, where the area lies outside the municipality, there will be at least one representative of the municipality concerned on the local board? The local board can restrict the number of omnibuses or motor vehicles plying on a route, and so can the local authorities, and there will be two authorities legislating on the same field. If these two bodies are going to work independently, you are going to find a great deal of conflict, and the Act will not work smoothly. Apart from that, one can foresee cases of very considerable hardship. I should like to ask the members who represent Durban and Pretoria whether there is anything in this from their point of view. When they go home, and they are going home at some time, they will find this question put to them as to whether they raised the point that those municipalities should have a representative on the board in this area.

I want to meet the case which the hon. member has put, and I suggest that, in line 25, before the word “within” we should insert “coinciding with, or for the greater part falling within the area.”

If there are to be a number of local boards, would it not be possible under this clause to have two or three local boards in a given area, and to have the same member who is appointed by the central board, and the same member who is appointed by the administrator, as permanent members of all the local boards of the area so as to have continuity of policy? Take the position of Natal, for instance, if there is to be more than one board. The municipal council, or local authority concerned could nominate one member of their local board and the other two appointed by the administrator and the central board would serve on that local board and on all other local boards in the province, and thus give the provincial character to all the boards of Natal. This clause should therefore make provision for a member serving on more than one board.

Yes, I think that is a good suggestion.

The difficulty is that sometimes the area might be larger outside the municipality while its value would be smaller, and the population might be concentrated in the municipality. The form of the amendment which I think best would be to say that in any municipality with a European population exceeding 20,000, that municipality should appoint one member of the board in any local carrier area, in which that municipality lies. That would get over the difficulty of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter).

I do not know whether it is the question of density of population, or the question of transportation which is the main factor. We have to make provision for cases where a big town has a transportation problem, in handling people from the same town to outer areas. Johannesburg tramways, for instance, transports 56,000,000 people, and that gives us an idea of the problems that might arise in this connection.

The point raised by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) is one that I intended to raise myself, as to greater area or greater population. It may happen, in certain sections, that the population is the important factor in the matter. I think it should be made “greater area and/or greater population”, so as to provide the alternative.

I consider the objection of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) might be met by—

If in that area you had a city with a population of more than 20,000, it is the people there who are deeply interested in regulating motor traffic. You would ensure, by this amendment, that a member of that council will sit upon the local board.

What if we had two such towns?

I should like to ask if the hon. member if he would kindly tell me of any portion of South Africa where you have one town with 20,000 inhabitants situated next to another with 20,000 inhabitants?

On the Rand you have Johannesburg and Germiston.

I do not think Germiston has 20,000 inhabitants, but if you have two such towns the solution will be to have two separate transportation areas.

It is remarkable, after the peculiar manner and attention which the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) has given to this matter, that he is not able to get anything more practicable than this suggestion of his. It is quite an impossible suggestion. Take an area like the Rand. The hon. member for Gardens suggests that, it should be cut up into perhaps half-a-dozen local areas. I hold that it is necessary for an area like the Rand to be co-ordinated into one whole area. It is impossible to do that with all these small boards all over the Rand. If you accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Gardens you will have to have more than one area. I am surprised that the hon. member, who has given so much time to this measure, should come forward with such an impracticable measure.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Mr. Coulter withdrawn.

I move—

I move—

Must you not then move a similar amendment in sub-section (1)?

I do not think so.

The amendment that I suggested, I think, would be met by the following form—

I want some definite record of the population, and the record of the municipal roll of ratepayers seems to me to meet the difficulty.

I believe the position raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) will be met if I move—

I have no objection to the further amendment moved by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter). I think the amendments of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) is covered by that of the hon. member for Gardens.

I think the amendment to sub-section (2) does affect the phraseology of sub-section (1). I would like to point out that under sub-section (1) you might have an area which includes a municipality. In such a case the administrator will appoint two members.

If we accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter), the wording of line 25 must not be altered. I withdraw my amendment. Owing to the hurry we are in it is difficult to place an amendment on the Order Paper for the report stage.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Mr. Stuttaford withdrawn.

Now that we are agreed on what we want to achieve, we might pass the clause and give the law adviser an opportunity of going into it so that we may consider it at the report stage.

I am quite satisfied with that, and I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Railways and Harbours, Mr. Coulter and Mr. Sturrock put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move—

Agreed to.

I would like to ask the Minister for some information on what he calls the functions and the duties of the board. If you look at sub-clause (b) you will find that the board will have power to determine from time to time the volume and nature of motor carrier transportation which shall be permitted to operate over any proclaimed transportation route. On what principle are they going to proceed? One can look through this Bill in vain to find any principle, except in the long title. It is important that some principle should apply, because sooner or later, in the exercise of these powers, it will be necessary to come to a court of law. If it is to be a board governed by any principle at all, instead of its own sweet will, to determine whether a particular individual should carry on business, we should define the principle on which the board should proceed. It will be construed very strictly, and it does seem that something should be introduced to serve as a guiding principle to a board. A board will have to consider sometimes whether two sets of motor carriers shall be allowed to carry on business, even where the railway interests are not concerned. That power should not be used to restrict unreasonably the use of a modern system of transportation, and words to that effect should be put in. I move, as an amendment—

The board will know it is not governing with absolutely arbitrary powers. I want to move an amendment in sub-section (e), which is a most extraordinary sub-section. An employee of any carrier, convicted of any offence, may have his whole livelihood and business taken away from him and destroyed, which is an utterly unreasonable power. It means an employee may run past a traffic signal—I take an extreme case—and I daresay the Minister and hon. members may have done so—and a breach of that is a breach of the law relating to vehicular traffic. Suppose a company were in course of being formed to provide capital for a fleet of motor vehicles in a particular area, and it were realized that their licence might be taken away, if such a minor matter of that kind occurred? I would suggest that there be some reference to a court. It could then be fought out, and the whole gravity of the offence could be considered. Otherwise, this is an extraordinarily wide power. I know the board will not be so foolish as to take the licence away in the case of a minor infringement, but take the case in which a driver has had a number of convictions. Then the licence might be taken away. A case of that kind should be fought out in an open tribunal. I come back to my first point, when the board decides to cut down the existing or future rights of a motor carrier. It is important that where you are going to have a measure of confiscation, some principle should be laid down upon which the board shall proceed. At present, it is a matter entirely in the discretion of the board.

I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment, as the committee has already adopted an amendment in line 32, and it is not possible to go back for the purpose of moving an amendment in a previous part of the clause under consideration.

I think we really ought to have the opinion of the Minister of Justice as to this particular clause. Surely this is something new in parliamentary procedure, and appears to oust the jurisdiction of the courts.

Did I understand you aright? Did you rule the hon. member’s amendment out of order?

I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter), because an amendment has already been adopted in line 32, and it is not possible to go back.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

In regard to subsection (2) of Clause 6, I am afraid we have not considered this very carefully. When once the local boards have given any decision, and anybody not connected with the first parties wishes to appeal, they can go to the central board, and that board will have power to vary or set aside any decision. First of all, I think we should make provision that when a new party comes in the matter should be referred back to the local board for full consideration. The central board cannot consider the matter from the point of view of the local board. As the matter stands, the powers of the central board are far too wide. If there is trouble between the tram and bus service between here and Rondebosch, the local board fixes the time table in force. Suppose the railways then say they want to appeal. They can appeal to the central board without going to the local board. The central board can stop the bus traffic on that route. The decision will be very far-reaching if the central board has those powers. I do not wish to move an amendment, but I feel it is a matter of great importance, and I think the Minister should give it serious consideration. I would make the suggestion that after the word “person” in line 39, we should insert “after due notice to the parties in the original application.” I suggest we should-delete the words “or substituted” down to “given” in line 33.

I think the Minister should consider that when a new party comes in, in the first instance the matter should be referred back to the local board for full consideration before there is an appeal. I do not want an outsider to come in and steal a march on the parties who have had the matter considered in the first instance. I think the hon. Minister will appreciate my point, I tried to make it in the select committee, but somehow or other it passed the select committee without consideration. I think I am personally to blame, as I allowed the matter to be rushed.

You do not want to move now.

I think the Minister can consider it during the interval.

I move—

I suggest that Clause 6 stand over.

I want to repeat the amendment I put before, to cover the corresponding clause in lines 5 and 20. I have already handed in the amendment as follows—

I cannot accept this amendment. If we do what is asked we shall have one case after another before the courts. The hon. member will appreciate that the public interest is the overwhelming factor in regard to all these matters. You do not want to stop competition if it is in the public interest. In regard to subclause (e) I think the hon. member is making too much of it. Surely the members of the local or the central board, as reasonable men, will not take such measures as he suggests to revoke a licence.

This Clause describes the nature of the certificate issued by the board in regard to a motor used for transport or reward. The certificate will apply only to a particular vehicle. That, however, is altogether too restrictive. If I have permission to run a bus, say, between Cape Town and Wynberg, it does not matter very much which bus I run. I move—

I am prepared to meet the hon. member with regard to the first two points of his amendment, but in the following form—

and there is a consequential amendment in line 60.

In line 60, after “issued” to insert “or of any vehicle substituted therefor as provided in sub-section (d)”.

The last amendment I am not prepared to accept; that cuts away the whole principle of the Bill.

[Inaudible],

If a vehicle breaks down, is it withdrawn from service? With regard to sub-section (2), I am sorry the Minister cannot meet me, because there is rather an important principle at stake. I am afraid this board may turn a motor transport system into a modified railway system, which may be justified in some cases, but in most it is not. A motor car on a main road can deviate and stop at a farm, and then go back to the main road. The board may easily stultify motor transport in the country by compelling it to stick rigidly to certain routes. In the commission’s report, I would like to remind the Minister, the two industrial representatives, issued a minority report, dealing with this question. They say—

The time may come in future when it may be necessary to extend these powers to goods carrying transport, but as a start the Minister should confine this only to passenger services. I see the difficulty that boards centred in towns may not know what the real requirements of farmers are.

I move—

As far as a common carrier is concerned, he is obliged to carry goods at the tariff, provided there is room on the vehicle. There may be cases in which it pays them to take these at a lower price, and it does not seem to me in the public interest to prevent the public getting that advantage where such a state of affairs arises. For instance, it is quite possible that a carrier has to take goods to a certain place, and it pays him to take goods back at a lower price rather than return empty along the same route. Take some of the cross country routes; this may interest the hon. member for George (Mr. Brink).

George supports the railway,

I do not know whether the hon. member’s constituents are prepared to put their hands into their pockets; the hon. member might be quite prepared to put his hand into their pockets. This may also interest the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Basson)— there are extraordinary differences there between motor carrier rates and railway rates. Take the case of milk from Mossel Bay to Beaufort West. I notice that by rail, the rate is 3s. 9d. for a case of 56 lbs., by motor lorry it is 2s. The rate for rice by rail, per 100 lbs. is 9s. 2d., and by motor lorry it is 4s. 6d. Both in the interests of the merchants in Mossel Bay, and in the interests of the consumer in Beaufort West, why should not that natural route be used by motor transport? Those are reasons for not fixing a tariff, whether higher or lower. The other point I want to make is that I do not think the Minister of Railways and Harbours, or the Railway Administration can carry out this provision, if they try. I do not see how you are possibly going to prevent a man giving some form of rebate if he wants to. The man who gives the rebate is not likely to say anything about it, and the man who receives it is glad to get the cheap transport. A man can be a part owner, or motor transport can be started as a co-operative society, and then, on all the transport, members of the society would get a rebate on every pound paid for motor transport during the twelve months. I see very grave difficulties in carrying out this clause. It is quite possible, and reasonable, to prevent a man from charging more than a given tariff. That protects the buyer of transport, but the question of preventing a man from selling his transport at a lower price than his tariff. I do not think you are ever going to stop men from doing that. I, therefore, ask the Minister to accept my amendment.

I cannot agree to the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). The hon. member will see that to omit the words “adhere to” and to substitute the words “not exceeding” would make the clause useless. In some of the States of America they have gone much further. They have given the several authorities power to definitely lay down the rates, and we may ultimately have to come to that. I was very much interested to hear the hon. member favour the motor service from Mossel Bay. My hon. friend must appreciate that Mossel Bay could never hope to supply goods to Beaufort West by rail. With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) I am afraid I cannot agree to that. My hon. friend must appreciate that if we were to eliminate the carriage of goods, and simply confine the operation of this Bill to the conveyance of persons, it would not solve the whole problem which exists today. The problem exists with regard to goods, where motor carriers pick out the eyes of the traffic. We are going to prevent that by making them common carriers, and compelling them to publish their charges. We shall then be able to meet it. The Railway Administration is quite prepared to deal with this position, provided we know what we are up against. At the present time we have all sorts of ramshackle vehicles on the road, some vary their rates, very frequently, and employ inexperienced drivers at low wages. The whole position is chaotic. I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member.

I withdraw my amendment.

If you insert the words “and from any cause whatever” would not that be better?

I have discussed that fully with the law adviser, and I understand that the position is already met.

With leave of committee, amendments proposed by Mr. Sturrock in lines 53 and 60 withdrawn.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Railways and Harbours put and agreed to. Amendment proposed by Mr. Stuttaford and remaining amendments proposed by Mr. Sturrock put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I do not propose to move any amendment in regard to Clause 8. Referring to the proclamation of transportation areas, three months’ notice is given, but so far as I can see no notice is given when an area is proclaimed after the Bill is in operation. I would ask the Minister to consider the giving of three months’ notice before making proclamation of an area.

I do not see any need for that. Why should it be necessary to wait for three months. When once a local board has granted a provisional certificate, and the period during which appeal may be made has expired, why should we not proceed at once?

We will assume that the Bill has been working for twelve months, and you decide to prolcaim a new area. No one has any right to run motor buses for reward without certificates, and obviously they cannot have these certificates for a time.

Yes, I see the hon. member’s point, but provisional permission could be given. I am prepared to consider it should any difficulty arise in this connection.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I hope that the Minister will make an exception in this clause for the case where agricultural produce is transported from a farm to the nearest village or station. My reason for that is twofold. Firstly, that the railways carry agricultural produce very cheaply, and that no one will transport agricultural produce by lorries if there is a chance of sending it by rail. Secondly, because it is in the interests of the railways that the farm produce should be taken to the nearest village or station, because they will, of course, be put on rail there and transported further. I am pleading in this case for the farmer whom it does not pay to buy a motor lorry to transport his own goods. He carries his own goods by motor lorry and takes those of his neighbour as well. The position is that he benefits the railways as well, because he takes the agricultural produce to the station, and the farmer would otherwise have a struggle to get his goods to the railway. I know it may be said that he can get a certificate, but there is no guarantee of that in the Bill, and, as things are to-day, the farmers have enough trouble and bother that it should further be expected of them when they buy or own a motor lorry to have to stand about and apply for a licence. The railways are not hampered in this regard, but assisted. As I read the Bill, a farmer in a transportation area who has a motor lorry for his own use and loads up a few bags of maize of a neighbour’s to pay for the petrol, will be liable to a fine of £100 or six months. He can do it with his wagon, but if he uses a motor lorry he is liable to the fine. As the Minister has excluded drivers of hired lorries he can also make an exception of the farmer. The Minister is sympathetic towards the farmers and I am convinced that he will meet us in this respect. This is a matter which may cause great difficulty, and it ought to be avoided. I do not want it to be thought that the farmers must be excluded altogether, I merely want the farmers to have the right of carrying goods from a farm to the nearest village or station without first having to obtain a licence, but I do not want the farmers to be permitted to go about the district loading up and transporting goods.

I would like to move, in connection with Clause 9, the amendment standing in my name, and I hope the Minister will accept that—

I move—

I am prepared to accept these two amendments.

*As to the point of the hon. member for Senekal (Mr. Visser), I just want to mention a few practical difficulties. In the first place, who is a farmer? In my experience there are many farmers who go about with motor-lorries to make a profit. The farmer is absolutely free, even if he lives in a proclaimed area, to transport all his own produce, but the hon. member for Selekal mentions the case of a farmer who carries his own as well as his neighbour’s produce.

Why not?

But if we make one exception where are we going to stop? In such a case that person is no longer only a farmer, but also a transport rider. The second question is what is the centre to which the goods are carried, the village or the station?

The one that is nearer.

If the hon. member were to say to the station, then I could understand it, but if he carries the produce to the village, what security have we that it will come on rail? It is quite possible then that the goods will be transhipped on to a road lorry, which will take it to the port. The third difficulty is, what class of produce are to be included?

Agricultural produce.

But if the farmer, on his return journey, carries some sugar for his neighbour, are we going to permit it? We have already done our best to find a way out of the difficulty, but so far we have not succeeded. Perhaps we may be able to do something in committee, but if we were now to accept the proposal of the hon. member for Senekal, the door would be left open for all sorts of abuses, and we should have absolutely no control.

There are numbers of small farmers, particularly in the Western Province, and they cannot afford to have motor cars of their own, nor can they send their cream to the nearest station by an ordinary car.

They therefore get together and one of them buys a motor-lorry, and he arranges with the other small farmers on the way to the station to take in their cream. How is that man affected?

He can get a special certificate.

There is no provision here for that.

I cannot see that there will be any difficulty about it.

These small farmers are so far away from the station that they must make arrangements in this manner, and their only safety is to do so. I raised the matter in select committee, and I think the Minister should now make some provision to protect these men.

I just want to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Senekal (Mr. Visser). If we explain to the Minister he will understand in what a difficult position we are with our traffic in the south-western portion of the Cape Province. We cannot lay down there that the goods must be carried to the nearest station, because we cannot possibly carry more than 10 leaguers of must to the distillery. The distillery cannot give us enough vats to fill a truck. In my case the station is five miles from my farm, and the village seven miles. I am glad that the Minister has said that he will go into the matter again, so that on the consideration of the amendments we can see whether a suitable amendment cannot be inserted. I, however, want to impress on him that it is an important matter. There are some farmers who have motor lorries, and I acknowledge that they make a little profit by carrying the goods of other farmers, but they render those farmers a very great service. If we do not put a provision in the Bill to cover such cases, then it will not be the owners of the lorries who will suffer so much, they can leave the lorries idle, the people who will suffer will be those who are dependent for their transport on the motor lorries. It will put the wine farmer and the grain farmer in a very difficult position.

I quite appreciate the difficulty of the farmers, but suppose that there is a transportation area which runs down to the Cape, and there is a motor lorry that runs to Robertson or Swellendam. If he does not have a certificate, what prevents him from going on the road and transporting the goods to Cape Town?

He can remain in the district.

Then the transportation districts must be very small. If a farmer carries forage for his neighbour, why then cannot he go to the local boards which will readily give him a certificate? If we do not control the matter, then we shall have an impossible position, and people will evade the law in every possible way.

May I just ask the Minister whether, if a person gets a certificate, he can do work in the district?

Yes, certainly.

Does this paragraph cover the man who is running with a temporary certificate over a new route in a new area?

I do not think there is any question about it.

Does it cover this?

Yes.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I have certain amendments to move which may meet the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock). I want to move on the lines suggested by the hon. member. I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I move—

Is it the intention to make these people common carriers?

Yes.

Then how do you propose to do it? This Bill does not provide for it.

The local board and central board will have to use common sense in these matters. It would be unreasonable to expect a motor carrier to carry manure and cream together in one vehicle.

A carrier may be licensed to carry farm produce. Well, I might arrive at the station with a consignment of butter, and my hon. friend here might turn up at the same time with a load of pigs. If the carrier refused to convey the pigs, he might be guilty of an offence, and might be sued for damages by the owner. It does not help us for the Minister to laugh, and say he is going to leave it to the common sense of a gentleman living in Pretoria, who has spent the whole of his life in a lawyer’s office.

That is a bogey.

I am glad to hear it.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I move—

I move—

I have been asked to move this on behalf of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter), and I have done so, but I must confess I do not know exactly what it means.

The hon. member must move the amendment himself, or I cannot accept it.

Then I shall have to take the full responsibility.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Railways and Harbours put and agreed to.

Amendments proposed by Maj. Richards put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I have an amendment to this clause. I do not know whether it can be moved—

That amendment cannot be moved.

I have another amendment, not quite as simple as the last one. It has been specially asked to have this inserted at the request of the municipality of Cape Town, Durban and others. I move as an amendment—

Those who have any experience of municipal councils know that on many occasions the Railway Department simply ride roughshod over a municipality In Durban the Railway Administration run innumerable trolleys and steam and motor lorries, and they have the audacity to tender £500 as the full amount to be paid for the wear and tear of the roads and other traffic services. Is it fair? I want to ask the Minister, as a fair-minded man and a clever one at times, is it fair to set such a bad example? Other users of vehicles are more or less taxed to keep the well-to-do Railway Administration in a privileged position. An ordinary lorry pays £35 a year in taxes. In this Bill you are going to give yourselves special power to pay such a sum as you may think fit. You are going too far. These local authorities have to function under great difficulties, and it has all to come out of direct taxation. The Minister should give a local authority the right to tax these vehicles according to the use they make of the roads in urban areas.

Perhaps it is just as well if I give some indication of the policy I propose to follow in this matter. I think it was the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) who, a few days ago, gave the House a statement of what the railway was giving in the way of free services, and he said it amounted to close on £1,000,000 a year. I do not want to bind myself to that figure, but for the purposes of my argument I accept his figure. I would ask the hon. member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton) to bear in mind that the state railways give free services to the central government, the provincial councils and local bodies to the value of about £1,000,000.

To the municipalities?

Yes, through the provinces which, again, are able to give services to the municipalities.

What benefits do they give?

They look to the parent body for assistance.

Not financial assistance.

If once you admit the principle that the state is liable for taxation, where will it stop? If the House is prepared to say that the Railway Administration shall no longer give all these free services, then we may consider the payment by the Railway Administration of customs duties, and ordinary taxation. But the railway is run as a state institution. I am not prepared to admit the principle that the state is responsible for taxation. If these taxes were paid, the users of the railway would have to shoulder the burden. I propose, where we are operating a service in a transportation area in competition with another motor carrier, that we should pay licence fees. If we get, as far as the wages and working conditions are concerned, a square deal, then I think it only right that we should pay. We are not afraid of competing with private enterprise if there is equal treatment. But take the cartage services the railway is giving. It we were to pay licence fees on cartage vehicles, we shall have to raise our charges. It is true that we are paying certain amounts in Johannesburg and Durban, and I think in Port Elizabeth, but those are free grants. I have never been able to appreciate why my predecessors agreed to pay those amounts. It has been a standing payment by the railway for many years. If we were to pay on all our cartage services it would amount to a very large sum, and the users of the railways would have to pay it. I also think it would be a mistake to pay licence fees in the case of pioneer services. Many of them are run at a loss.

What about the damage to the roads?

We do not construct the roads. Does not the ox-waggon also damage the roads? Let me say to hon. members who think that we should take the responsibility, that we have always said to the provinces: “Unless you are prepared to put the roads in order we cannot put vehicles on them.” I am glad to say that they have always recognized the desirability of putting the roads in order so that the vehicles my be run. The services we render are not only to the benefit of the public concerned, but the provincial council share in that the value of the properties in such areas rise in value.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered to-morrow.

I move—

This and certain other amendments of a similar character are intended to meet the difficulty raised by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) at the second reading, when he pointed out that the method of control of this institute was very cumbersome. A provision was made that the institute should consist of a board and director and a technical committee and that these three parties should be appointed by the Minister or the Governor-General. It was pointed out to me by the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) that this was a very cumbersome way of controlling the institute. I have accordingly adopted his suggestion, which I think makes the Bill much more workable and have provided that the board be first appointed and that the board then make the other appointments. The amendment standing in my name, as also the eliminations of sub-sections (2) and (3), are designed to meet that difficulty.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

I move—

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 21,

I move—

In line 63, to omit “hereby repealed.” and to substitute “shall be repealed as from a date to be fixed by the Governor-General by proclamation in the Gazette.”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 22, and the title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments, which were considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

On the motion that the Bill be now read a third time,

Before we vote for the third reading of this Bill, I wish to make a few remarks on the Bill. I shall not be long, and I trust that what I Have to say will be of some interest to the House. In the first place, I wish to refer to the figure mentioned on the occasion of the second reading, when this country was referred to as a country of vast resources of coal. The figure of 200,000,000,000 tons of coal was mentioned. Hon. members must not run away with the idea that this figure of 200,000,000,000 tons of coal is all high-class coal. A comparatively small percentage of it is high-class coal. Even so, the amount we have in this country is enough to last us for such a long time that we need not be anxious about it. There is reason to believe that the quantity of the highest grade coal, the Natal coal, such as that found in the Hattinghspruit area, is not so very abundant, that its quantity is comparatively limited, and that its life will not run into many generations. On the other hand, the quantity of the coal of the quality found at Witbank is very large, and we may look forward to a long life for that field. The quantity of coal of a lower grade is very vast. This low-grade coal may even be found to be more suitable for making liquid fuel than the higher grade coal. Coal, for example, which to-day proves unsaleable in certain districts in the country, may be found to yield more or better liquid fuel than, perhaps, our high-grade coal. It is a matter for research, and we need not discard these coals and put them out of our minds as being of no use. Then I wish to refer to the amount that we are devoting to research work here. We are founding an institution which will cost £30,000, and which will have a revenue of £14,000 per annum, which will be derived from contributions, half by the collieries, and half by State contributions. This sum may look large, but in the first place, half of the annual contribution will be utilized for the purpose of grading, and more than half should be available for research. If you have £10,000 a year for research, it may seem to be a considerable amount, But when one considers that such an institution as the Imperial Chemical Industries spends £300,000 per annum in chemical and other research, including coal research, one begins to sense what we can do for £10,000, and that amount does not seem very much after all. The sum of £300,000 per annum sounds a very large figure. But it is not only in England that research work is being carried on on a large scale. In Germany the I.G. Chemical Combine carries on research also on a very large scale, indeed on a much larger scale. It spends many millions of marks annually for this purpose. Objection has been raised, I understand, to the idea contained in this Bill that the grading of coal should be carried on in the same institute as research work. It is feared that the director’s attention might be diverted from real research towards routine work of grading coal. I do not think that the House need fear that this would be the case. I may point to an institution already in existence where such combined routine and research work is carried on successfully. That is the South African Institute of Medical Research in Johannesburg. This institution carries on routine work on a large scale, and also research work, and the two branches are entirely separate. At Onderstepoort it is exactly the same. The amount of research carried on at the South African Institute of Medical Research would be large, even if the whole routine division were wiped out. But there is a profit from the routine division which goes towards carrying on research more extensively. Thus I have no fear that, if a director of the proper calibre were appointed, he would not carry on research work to the best of his ability, in spite of his having to look after routine work also. The work of the institute is going to be, so far as I can see, threefold; in the first place, the routine work of coal grading, hitherto carried on in the Transvaal and in Natal by the coal grading committees. The second portion of the work will be the main work, a coal survey. That, I think, will remain the chief work of the institute. It will be research of a kind original in its way, but really of the nature of a survey like a soil survey; that is the closest parallel I can find to indicate to hon. members the nature of the work. It will be an examination of our coals to be found in various parts of the country, as to their nature, as to the products that they can yield by various processes, and especially as to the amount of fuel oil that they will yield on hydrogenation. The third branch is original research, research which will have for its object the discovery of new processes for utilizing our coal. It may be expected that a certain amount of time will be devoted to this, dependant upon the time available to the research worker, the facilities at his disposal and his inclination. I have no fear that our young men will not be capable of doing this kind of work. It may be that we will not be carrying on research to a very large extent, or very intensively, but I think it is possible that we may, in South Africa, make discoveries which will be of great importance. Of course, as to the actual processes that are to be carried into practical effect, it is more likely that we shall be successful if we copy what has been done elsewhere in the world. I wish to add a few remarks in regard to the world-position of the utilization of coal for the manufacture of liquid fuel. In Germany, where the original process was discovered of liquifying coal, and of obtaining petrol fuel from it, the position is as follows: True, coal itself, that is black coal, anthracite and bituminous coal, is not being utilized for this purpose commercially. Experiments are still going on, but they have not resulted in a commercial process. On the other hand, brown coal is being utilized for this purpose, and the tar distillates from it, which are produced on a large scale in Germany, are being uitilized and hydrogenated, and they yield petrol or motor fuel, not exactly petrol, but liquid motor fuel in large quantities by this process. There is not much profit in it yet. The Germans are very keen on this subject, and are pushing the matter as hard as they can. In England one plant is in operation in Billingham. It was started last November, and I happened to be there the day after. It is a small pilot plant capable of utilizing ten tons a day of black coal, and it was expected that 170 gallons of petrol would be obtained from a ton of coal. The technical process has been proved and has reached a satisfactory stage, but it has not yet been proved commercially profitable. In a process of this nature swarming with difficulties, men with long training are required, and the processes will have to be mechanized so that everything can be done as cheaply as possible before success can be attained commercially. Nothing has been done in America in this direction yet. Motor fuel has hitherto been prepared by the distillation and cracking of crude oil. The yield from this process is about 50 per cent., but it has been found that by hydrogenating it the crude oil may be made to yield a very much higher percentage, in fact, nearly 100 per cent, of fuel. This process is so promising that three plants are being erected to operate it, and the result will be to make it more difficult for us to compete because the process will yield a cheaper petrol, and we should therefore be able to buy petrol at a lower rate than in the past, so that the South African article may have a difficulty in competing with the article from America. At the same time, this process will lead to a conservation of the natural resources in crude oil, as only half the quantity of crude oil will be used and so the Americans will be able to husband their resources. The most recent development I have seen recorded is the formation of a company in Australia with a capital of £3,000,000 to extract oil from brown coal deposits in New South Wales. The process to be used will no doubt be much the same as the one employed in Germany, and liquid fuel will be turned out. The company is under the aegis of a combine consisting of the Standard Oil Company, the Imperial Chemicals Company and the I.G. Company, and with such technical and financial assistance, there is every chance of the venture proving successful. It may be that these interests will also turn their attention to South Africa. If that is the case, the day may not be far distant when liquid fuel will be produced from our coal, and I trust that when opportunities offer the Government will afford encouragement and give facilities for the formation of such a company.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

It would facilitate matters if we started with the consideration of Clause 19 on which a number of the preceding clauses hinge. I propose to move an amendment to Clause 19 which, if accepted, will facilitate the passage of the Bill. I move—

Would not that be establishing a precedent?

It has been done in the past.

I am glad the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) suggested that because since the Bill came from the select committee representations have been made to me by financiers and the banks, and my attention has been drawn to the fact that the Bill, as now amended, will not answer the purpose for which it was intended, to make exchange of receipts possible. When legal possession, according to the amended Bill, changes hands, then if the original owner goes bankrupt the court can decide that there shall be a division amongst the creditors. The banks accordingly suggest that we should return to the original proposition. I hope, therefore, that the House will be willing to begin with Clause 19. If an hon. member will then propose to return to the old form of the Bill, then I will agree.

Motion put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

On amendments proposed by select committee.

I move—

The Bill originally provided for the negotiation of warehouse receipts in two forms. One form was in such a way that a person holding such a receipt divested himself of the ownership entirely; the second form took the form that the pledgor pledged the receipt without divesting himself of the ownership of the produce. That provision was expunged when the matter was before the select committee and in the interests of the primary producer I think it should be rein stated. If sub-section (b) is to remain expunged it is defeating the object of the Bill, and the benefit the farmer is deriving as a producer is nullified.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Omission of Clause 20 put and negatived.

I move—

1. (3) Every prior endorser who repays the holder of a warehouse receipt the amount of the liability secured thereby shall be entitled to demand the re-negotiation of the receipt to himself.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 21 put and negatived.

New Clause 21,

I move—

1. 21. (1) Every holder of a warehouse receipt shall hold it free from mere personal defences available to the prior parties thereto among themselves.
2. (2) Every holder of such a receipt who took it in good faith and for value and who at the time it was negotiated to him had no notice of any defect in the title of the person who negotiated it to him shall hold it free from any defect of title of prior holders.
3. (3) Every holder of such a receipt shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have taken it in good faith and for value and to have had at the time it was negotiated to him no notice of any defect in the title of any prior holder.
4. (4) The title of a person who negotiates a receipt is defective within the meaning of this section when he obtained it by fraud or other unlawful means or for an illegal consideration or when he negotiates it in breach of faith or under such circumstances as amount to fraud.

Agreed to.

On Clause 22,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 24,

On amendment proposed by select committee in sub-section (2).

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

Amendment proposed by select committee put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Agriculture put and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 27,

Amendments proposed by select committee, put and negatived.

On Clause 3 [standing over],

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

On amendments proposed by select committee.

I move, as amendments to these amendments—

1. (2) A warehouseman shall have a lien on any products stored in his warehouse for the payment of any costs including storage and transport charges, if any, lawfully incurred by him in connection with such products whilst under his control, and in case redelivery of any products so stored is not demanded within a reasonable period not exceeding twelve months, or the storage charges are in arrear, the warehouseman may, after notifying the holder of the warehouse-receipt issued in respect of such products that he will sell such products unless such costs are paid within a specified time not being less than seven days, sell such products to the best possible advantage and out of the proceeds of the sale defray such costs and he shall thereupon pay the holder of the warehouse-receipt any surplus above such costs against the surrender of the receipt.

I do not quite understand what is happening. If re-delivery is not demanded within a reasonable time, not exceeding 12 months or the rent being in arrear, the warehouseman may, after serving due notice on the holder of the warehouse-receipt, sell. But the receipt has been negotiated?

We will arrange by regulation that, when the receipt is handed over, it will always bear the address of the warehouseman.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Amendments, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move—

1. (2) A warehouseman may mix fungible products of the same kind and grade or standard or other proper description for which separate warehouse-receipts were issued, if the depositor to whom each such receipt was issued has signified in writing on his receipt his permission to such mixing: Provided that the warehouseman shall be liable in respect of each such receipt to deliver products of such quantity, kind or grade or standard or proper description as is specified therein.

Is a warehouseman responsible for loss of weight?

No, there is a certain clause which provides that in the case of the drying up and destruction of produce on account of the weevil, etc., for which he is not responsible, it will not be recoverable from him.

According to this amendment the warehouseman is liable in respect of each receipt. If a man has a receipt for No. 2 white mealies, he must deliver the quantity-specified in that receipt. He may find he is short and cannot deliver. Who is responsible?

Is that not covered by the new clause following Clause 15, which shows a warehouseman is not responsible for loss, damage or deterioration, other than loss by fire or negligence. All other losses are covered.

What is going to happen? The warehouseman must deliver the quantity, and he will take responsibility for the loss of weight they may have suffered.

I think that it is very clear that the clause my hon. friend quoted, viz., Clause 15, provides for the difficulty. We discussed it in the select committee, and came to the conclusion that a warehouseman cannot possibly be held responsible for drying or for weevil, because they may already be in the maize when it comes into the warehouse. But if a man puts a certain kind of maize into the warehouse he can make a stipulation that it shall be kept separate. As long as he does not make such a stipulation, however, the warehouseman will comply with the law if he delivers the same class and quality of grain.

But what quantity is he going to get? Supposing I have a receipt entitling me to a hundred tons of mealies; how is the warehouseman to know what to give me. The mealies may have dried out to the extent of 5 per cent. If he gives me 100 tons, and every other person who holds a receipt for that quantity gets 100 tons, he will find that he is short.

We have already had that case in the grain elevators. It is there provided that the maize must have 12½ per cent, moisture standard, and then 1 per cent, is allowed for drying. We shall deal with the matter by way of regulations. It is a difficult matter, and if the hon. member has an amendment to make the position clearer I will welcome it.

This amendment of the Minister says “the warehouseman shall be liable to deliver such quantity as may be specified thereon.” If I have a receipt for—

I think my hon. friend must read Section 12 (h) in connection with this. I must say I think we ought to leave those words which it is now suggested should come out. It was very clear that the owner of the warehouse-receipt would have to run the risk of any reduction. As suggested by the committee, we have this position—

I think we ought not to accept this, but we will come to that later on.

Unless you put in this proviso, that the liability is subject to some other clause—this would leave the position quite clear that the warehouseman is responsible for the quantity and for any loss. It says here—

That seems to entitle him to the quantity on the receipt, and nothing less.

When this clause was accepted, they could not get the warehouseman to give the weight, Usually a certain number of bags are put in but there will be a deterioration of from five to six lbs. a bag, and it was really intended there that the number of receptacles should be given irrespective of weight. That was the intention.

I suggest the addition of the words “less the percentage prescribed by regulation”

I suggest to the Minister that he takes out his proviso to his amendment to Clause 11.

We might take Clause 12 and then go back to Section 11. To my mind, it will depend upon what we have got in sub-section (1) (h). If we take the old wording, it says, subject to Section 12 (1) (h)—

If we take the old words, then I am afraid it will not be of much use to refer to it at all. All that will be necessary will be something to the effect as suggested by the Minister, subject to what may be fixed by the resolution.

I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 12,

On amendments proposed by select committee in sub-section (1).

I move, as amendments to these amendments—

If the Minister takes out the proviso the effect of (h) of Clause 12 is that the warehouseman undertakes to deliver or demand to the holder of such warehouse-receipt the products specified therein in the same condition wherein they were when he received them. He is liable for any loss of weight.

The proviso is being deleted, because it is included in new Clause 15.

I think the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) is correct in his contention in the case of fundables, but in the case of non-fundables the warehouse will be covered. In order to protect the warehouse against loss of weight as the result of any drying out process, I think the Minister’s amendment will completely meet the case. In the grain elevators a percentage allowance is made for loss of weight as the result of drying. If the Minister’s amendment is adopted the difficulty foreseen by the hon. member for Yeoville will be met.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Amendments, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move—

which will have the effect of reinstating the words “either (a)” in line 4, page 10, and ‘(or)” in line 5 and the whole of sub-section (b).

I think my hon. friend (Mr. Anderson) has overlooked the amendment on the notice paper by the Minister of Agriculture proposing a new Clause 15. If the proviso falls away as the Minister proposes, and his amendment is adopted, any loss or deterioration will then be borne by the holder of the receipt.

Amendments proposed by select committee in sub-section (4) put and negatived.

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New Clause to follow Clause 15,

I move—

1. 16. (1) Every warehouseman shall be liable for the loss, damage, deterioration or destruction of products stored in his warehouse unless he proves that such loss, damage, deterioration or destruction was due to causes other than fire or the negligence or wrongful acts or omissions of himself, his servants or agents.
2. (2) The value of any products to be taken into consideration in estimating the damages to which the holder of a warehouse-receipt may be entitled shall be the value of like products as at the time when the warehouseman delivered or should have delivered the products specified in such receipt.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

On amendment proposed by select committee in lines 69 to 72, namely, to omit “and the purpose of the endorsement and, if made in terms of paragraph (b) of the said sub-section, any condition attaching to the liability and shall be signed by the endorser”.

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

Amendment proposed by select committee put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Agriculture put and agreed to.

On remaining amendment proposed by select committee,

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

Agreed to.

Amendments, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11 [standing over].

I move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Minister of Agriculture—

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Schedule and title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered to-morrow.

I move—

Hon. members will know that under the Act of 1916 there is a proviso which restricts the power of the Railway Administration to carry goods by road in urban areas except to and from a railway station. That is the position at the present time. It is generally felt, and was felt by the Motor Competition Commission that this restriction should be removed. The Road Competition Commission reported that there was substantial unanimity of opinion, provided the Railway Administration paid ordinary motor taxation, that the proviso should be removed. All that this Bill provides for is the removal of the proviso. I know that there are difficulties with regard to taxation, and it has been suggested to me that the position might be met if I agreed to pay the ordinary licence fees on vehicles carrying goods from store to store, but not on vehicles used in ordinary cartage work as we are doing at the present time, and on which I do not propose to pay licence fees. It will be difficult in working to indicate what vehicles will do that particular class of work. A particular vehicle might be doing the ordinary cartage work, and the next hour that same vehicle might be engaged in carrying goods from store to store. There are practical difficulties, but I propose discussing the matter with the general manager to see whether we can distinguish between the vehicles employed in ordinary cartage work, and the vehicles doing this particular work. The principle of the Bill, however, is sound, and I ask the House to agree to it. Perhaps I might illustrate the position. Goods are tendered, say, by a merchant in Germiston, and we are asked to carry those goods to Roodepoort. At the present time we would have to lift those goods at the store in Germiston, put them into a truck, convey them by train to Roodepoort, and then, from the train, to their destination. That makes the position difficult. What we now propose is to take power to lift the goods at the store in Germiston, and take them direct to their destination in Roodepoort. If we do that, it is fair that we should pay a licence fee on the vehicle used in such service.

I do not know to what extent the Minister has considered the representations made to him in regard to this Bill, but I find that quite a storm is beginning to rise all over the country. Attention is being deflected from the Motor Competition Bill on to this Bill. I received to-day a long telegram which I think should be read to this House, from a body called the Rand Cartage Contractors’ Association. I believe this telegram has gone to the Government too. In it these people say that the association consisting of 50 members all engaged on the cartage business, that is, transport of goods by means of motor and animal-drawn vehicles, rendering extremely useful service to the local community, have learnt with extreme consternation of the proposal to amend Section (3) (k) of the Railways and Harbours Regulations, Control and Management Act, 1916, by the deletion of the proviso contained in that section. Many members of the association have been established in business for a long time, some nearly 40 years. A large capital is invested amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds. Members employed over 1,000 whites, who have over 4,000 women and children dependents. From £70,000 to £100,000 has been expended annually in feeding the animals owned by members. If the amending Bill is passed, it will mean complete ruination to members of the association, and their employees, and it will also cause serious loss to community. The position has been considered and recognized by previous Governments and railways administrations. Railways administration undertakings given on several occasions prior to passing of Act 1916 when proviso contained in Clause 3 sub-section (k) deliberately inserted in fulfilment of promises and undertakings given to protect interests and rights of members of association. Members justified in regarding Section 2 sub-section (k) of Act of 1916 as final and relying upon matter having been definitely settled have provided more capital and equipment and generally developed and expanded their businesses involving practically the whole of their means. Their prospects are extremely serious. Ruination stares them in the face unless Government will withdraw proposed amendment and allow the above-mentioned proviso to continue in force. At present railways enjoy absolute monopoly of delivery of goods to and from Kazerne and profits resulting from this work admittedly very considerable, suggest railways should be satisfied and allow us to continue to earn honest living the work being carried on by members of the association has given every satisfaction to the public who have not asked for any change and the association is fully capable of meeting all public requirements If Government unable, to withdraw proposed amendment above-mentioned suggest that Clause 3 (k) be modified by making provision that Railway Department shall not compete with private enterprise on the Witwatersrand unless authority shall decide after enquiry that existing facilities are not adequate to meet public requirements—(Rand Cartage Contractors’ Association). One feels that due weight should be attached to these very serious representations, as to what extent the Minister would embark in competition and would make use of the wide powers now given to him to make use of this transport apart from the railways— here, for the first time, he will come into violent contact with forms of transport which have grown up on which the living of quite a number of people depends. I do not know how many, but I think in the larger centres where the Minister is now going to exercise this right of delivery, apart from the railways—house to house delivery—he will come into competition with large numbers of people who have taken to this as their livelihood. The Minister is in a highly-favoured position without a doubt from the point of view that he has the public and the taxpayer behind him and he is in a stronger position than the private person. The private user of this service will now be liable both for the service which he is rendering, and as a taxpayer to help his competitors the railways, and I think the Minister should consider whether some limitation cannot be put on this competition on which he is embarking. It is here proposed to give him unlimited powers to compete with private people and the question is whether it is not possible to impose some limitations. I admit that the old limitations—the old proviso of 1916—went too far and this handicapped the railways very seriously in the new competition which had started. But whether we should go the whole hog now and embark on wholesale competitions with the public in this kind of service is I think doubtful and requires very careful consideration.

I feel the Minister should consider very carefully where he proposes to draw the line. From previous discussions I understood the idea was only to go in for road competition where goods could be delivered more expeditiously than now, and the example given by the Minister is an example which I think he should follow more closely. Goods for delivery for Wynberg, for instance, from Cape Town by rail—in this case if carried by road much time will be saved and in such a case we have no objection. But the Minister will have power to engage in wide competition to which there is no limit. The Minister’s objection to road motor transportation is the objection I have to the railways. They, like the ordinary motor transport driver, also on occasion choose the goods they should deliver. We should have the right to say also when goods are brought to Cape Town by train that the railways should make delivery within a certain reasonable distance. I agree with my hon. leader that there is reason for this amendment. I think it is going to do the public good, where, for example, the delivery can be made more expeditiously than at the present time. Strangely enough, until this Bill appeared, I think very few members of the public appreciated that there was this restriction in the 1916 Act. I understand that the Minister has been breaking the law and very few people knew about it or about this restriction. If he only goes as far as that and is prepared to say where he goes in for further competition he would agree to have these vehicles taxed the same as the ordinary individual has his taxed, I can see no objection to this Bill. I hope that the Minister will make a little more clear what his intentions are. I hope that the Minister will accept the suggestion made by hon. members on this side of the House. When he does enter into competition he will pay the tax upon his vehicles.

I think the hon. Minister must take a rather wider outlook regarding the question of the vehicles upon which he will pay the vehicles tax. All his vehicles use the roads which have to be kept in order by the local authorities. He might take the point of view that he should pay on all his vehicles. I cannot see why he should only pay on such vehicles as do this house to house direct delivery. I would point out to the hon. Minister that all his lorries come in free of duty, so he saves that form of taxation. All his lorries use petrol which does not pay duty, and he saves that form of taxation. In addition to that, he gets his petrol a great deal more cheaply than any other consumer in the country. I think the Minister will agree there. He gets his petrol a good deal lower than any of his competitors for two reasons. One is that the Government is a very big consumer, and that is naturally a reason why he gets a good price. He also gets it at a lower price, because the petrol companies give the Government petrol at a low price, because they think it is just as well to treat the man with a big stick carefully and nicely. He gets his petrol really a great deal lower than the companies are justified in giving it to him, as compared with other purchasers of petrol. I have no complaint to make about the Government doing that. They have an excellent deal, but I do suggest that he is getting advantage of free duty on his lorries and the advantage of free duty on his petrol, and he is getting also the advantage of the price on petrol which is also free of duty, and he is therefore at a big advantage as compared with any other competitor. I think, therefore, the Minister might look at the matter from the broad standpoint and say that the railway will pay licences on all its vehicles that run on the roads as a set-off against the other advantages the railways enjoy. The British railway companies have the right the Minister is now seeking, and they have proved that they can run the private lorry-owner off the streets after paying all the taxes that a private owner has to bear; even if the Minister pays licences on the whole of his lorries, the dice will still be loaded against the private contractor. The Minister should concede the point and thus help to mollify the private contractors who will be very severely hit. I know the Government is socialistic in attitude, and the question of killing a few private individuals does not matter to it, but it is a very serious matter for the man who has put a lot of money into motor or horse transport, and who is going to be wiped out by the Government in an unfair fight. In a fair fight the private lorry-owner will make rings round the Minister.

Come, come.

The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has dealt with one or two points I was going to make, so I need not repeat them. In this matter, we have the support, not only of the South African motor traders, but also of the Road Motor Competition Commission, which is of opinion that, provided the Railway Administration pays the ordinary road motor taxes, the proviso should be repealed. I therefore hope the Minister will meet the position.

I think it must be realized, as hon. members do realize, that speed is the great and important factor to-day in regard to transport, and the attention of the general manager and all officers and employees is constantly being drawn to this factor. With the proviso existing, we cannot give the public that efficient service we desire to. I am glad to hear that hon. members are in agreement with the removal of this proviso. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has read a telegram, which I have also received, and said we may be taking the traffic from these people; but he seems to have forgotten that the traffic has been taken away from us by these gentlemen. We were doing the traffic on the Rand, but this has largely disappeared. Surely we are not now asked to put up our hands. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) said we were socialistic. The truth is he is socialistic. He said: “Do not put up your hands; put up your fists.” The Railway Administration has also been made subject to the Bill which we hope to pass to-morrow.

That is yourselves.

Does the hon. member suggest that the local transportation board on the Rand will consist of Government nominees? It will consist of nominees, not of the Government, but of the local bodies.

You can appeal from that.

Yes, certainly, if the transportation board takes a decision which is not a reasonable one. The hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) took the case of goods coming by train from the country to Cape Town station, and delivered in the suburbs. He is wrong there. We may take goods from Cape Town station to the suburbs; there is no difficulty about that.

I am giving the case one of your officials gave.

It is not quite correct. If I understood the hon. member correctly, he made the suggestion that we might get over the difficulty by paying licence fees on the increased equipment, and I think we might consider that suggestion. I want to meet hon. members, and this may be a way. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) forgets that the methods adopted by the British railway companies are quite different. They have purchased an interest in the existing transport organizations, and have not, as a rule, set up their own organizations. They have obtained a controlling interest in many such organizations.

There are amalgamations.

They pay full taxation, but they have not the burdens which the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) so eloquently outlined—providing £1,000,000 services free. The House may adopt the second reading, and I shall consider the matter to which I have referred.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee to-morrow.