I move—

I second.

I welcome the Minister’s proposal that we should adjourn to-night until after Easter, but I must say that I am very sorry that we did not adjourn last night, because many of us who live far away from here will now be obliged to travel on Good Friday, which is a religious holiday. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible for the House to adjourn until Thursday, the 28th March, instead of Wednesday, the 27th March? The reason is that many of us who live in the far away parts of Natal, Potgietersrust or Lydenburg, and those areas, will have to leave on Sunday which is also a religious holiday, in order to be here in time; failing which they will have to arrive here late. As we are a Christian nation which desires to respect its religious holidays, I consider it is the correct thing for us to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to adjourn the House until the 28th instead of until the 27th? I am not speaking on my own behalf, because it will not affect me, but there are quite a number of members who, if they want to be here in time, will have to travel on Sunday.

I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here as a motion of this kind when it comes before the House, is difficult to amend once the Easter holiday recess has been arranged. It may be difficult for the Minister of Finance, who is proposing this motion on behalf of the Prime Minister, to accept an amendment without having consulted the Prime Minister. Yet there is much to be said for what the hon. member has just stated. I am afraid that sufficient account is not taken of the convenience of hon. members who live far away. Under the provisions of this motion a fair amount of time is allowed to members who live nearby, but so far as members who live far away are concerned, a large portion of their time is taken up by travelling to and from Cape Town. We know that those members will have to spend most of their time on the train; this applies particularly to members coming from certain parts of the Transvaal. The object of this break is not merely that members should have a short holiday, but the object is also to give members an opportunity of attending to some urgent work. Nearly all the days they will be at then homes will be holidays, such as Good Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and as hon. members know the festive days on the platteland are celebrated by the holding of Nagmaal; Monday is also a holiday and that is the day when they will have to leave again. I feel, therefore, that it would be very desirable to have the recess extended. I do not know whether the Prime Minister’s deputy is able to allow any amendment without his having consulted the Prime Minister, but there is much to be said in favour of an extra day.

As long ago as the 20th February this House fixed the date for the Easter vacation, and as far as I remember no objections were raised to our adjourning to-morrow and meeting again on Wednesday. We are now granting an extra day, as this motion proposes that we should rise one day earlier; yet hon. members are asking for more now and want an extra day’s holiday. I am sorry, but in view of the work in front of the House, and the arrangements already made in regard to the work to be done next week, however much I should like to meet the hon. member’s convenience, I cannot agree to such an amendment.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

This agreement, as members will have seen who have read it, is subject to review on the 31st December, 1940, and thereafter may be terminated at three months’ notice by the parties. So it is only a temporary agreement, and the concessions made to Newfoundland are that newsprint from that country shall be allowed in at a minimum duty, that is duty free. And as a quid pro quo sausage casings from the Union imported into Newfoundland will be subject to an ad valorem duty of 7 per cent., while jams, preserves and marmalade will be admitted under the British preferential rate of duty. At the end of this period my department proposes to consider the whole question on what other duties we can ask Newfoundland for concessions on. This agreement was entered into on the 5th. October, 1939, at a time when we were rather perturbed because of the difficulty of getting newsprint into the country. Our sources of supply in the United Kingdom and Scandinavia were likely to be interrupted, and there would have been a great shortage of newsprint, but fortunately we had this offer of newsprint from Newfoundland, a country from which we had not had newsprint before, and the only thing they asked us was that they should be put on the same basis as Canada — that they should have the same free entry of newsprint as Canada had. These suggestions were agreed to, particularly in view of the likelihood of a shortage of newsprint occurring. The removal of the 5 per cent. duty on newsprint from Newfoundland will make no difference to our revenue, because we have never had any newsprint from Newfoundland, so we never had any revenue. There is one rather interesting point in this connection. Members, especially the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen, Hertzog), will remember that Newfoundland, though it was a self-governing Dominion, is now no, longer so. It is now under the tutelage of the British Government; it is no longer a self-governing dominion, and it might have been urged by the British Government that that being the position of Newfoundland, it should have been treated as any other colony as distinct from a Dominion. But there was no necessity for this to be discussed, because it was in our own interest to get this newsprint into the country. Members will have noticed from the statistics that there has been a considerable decrease in imports from the United Kingdom, Canada, Sweden and Finland.

I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

I shall not detain the House long. On the second reading of this Bill the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) and the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. Baines) asked the Minister, if not exactly to exempt their areas, at any rate not to be too drastic there in the application of the Act. I hope the Minister will not grant their request. The greatest amount of fraud is committed in those faraway parts where people buy 3d. worth of sugar or coffee or flour instead of buying by weight. I want to ask the Minister, therefore, not to take any notice of that request, because it is in those distant parts that more protection is required than in the towns.

There is just one matter in connection with this Bill which I wish to bring forward this afternoon before the third reading is adopted. The parent Act makes provision for very severe penalties. In the case of a first conviction there may be a fine of £50, and on a second conviction a fine or imprisonment not exceeding six months and confiscation of the weighing instruments. It is quite right in view of the attitude which the House has taken up in regard to the defrauding of customers that the penalty should be severe. Now I want to draw attention to another aspect of this matter. I want to ask the Minister as a business man whether he approves of any measure being introduced in the House in this particular form. I call this slovenly legislation. I defy anyone in this House, if he doesn’t turn up the parent Act, to say what this Bill proposes. I have followed the usual practice of sending copies of this Bill to Chambers of Commerce in my constituency, and to other bodies that are interested, and the reply that I have got is invariably: “We cannot make head or tail of this Bill without the original Act.”

I have had to send them the necessary statute to enable them to make it out. Now my contention is that there should be some White Paper containing an explanation of the terms of this Bill. There are very many dealers and business men in this country who are directly interested in this measure and who are liable to serious penalties if they transgress the law. The least we can expect is that in a case like this a Bill should be so clear in its terms that it can be understood by the very people whom it is supposed to affect. I know it is impossible in this instance to do so, but I would ask the Minister, when introducing legislation of this kind, to introduce it in such a way that it can be understood by the people it affects, or at any rate to issue an explanatory White Paper.

I am pleased to be able to associate myself with the remarks made by the last speaker. Legislation of a drastic nature such as contained in the Bill we are dealing with, is introduced in order to cope with those people who try to evade the laws of this country, and not with the man who acts honestly and straightforwardly. That man will see to it that his weights and measures are in order, and that he gives his customers what they are entitled to. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) has also pointed out that it is undesirable to exempt certain areas. That is also my experience after fifty-three years in trade and commerce—I have found that it is not difficult for the honest trader to comply with the laws of the country, but this sort of legislation aims at the dishonest man. For that reason I would suggest to the Minister responsible for the administration of this law, that his assizers who go round the country should not advertise the fact a month in advance that they will visit Bethlehem on such and such a date for the purpose of checking weights and measures there. The man who wants to commit an offence will naturally see to it that his weights and measures are in order. He will prove that he is using the correct weights and measures, and they will be passed by the assizers, but it may be that those weights and measures which will be marked as correct will not be the weights and measures used for the rest of the year. If we want to trap offenders for whom this legislation is being introduced, we should not go about things in that way— we should not advertise in advance that the assizers are coming along to test the weights and measures. If we do the business in that way the only man who is going to be caught is the honest man whose weights may be slightly out as a result of long usage. That man does not want to commit any offence, but the man who for eleven months every year uses wrong weights and measures, is not going to be caught, because he has been warned in advance that his weights and measures are going to be tested. We know how this system works. The assizer comes along and after that people representing various companies visit the business concerns for the purpose of putting their scales in order. I say that under our present system we do not catch the people we want to catch. The hon. the Minister who was in business for many years himself has always been an honest business man, and he will make sure that no incorrect weights and measures are used, but the people who want to be dishonest are the ones who should be caught and dealt with.

I should like to reply to one or two of the points that have been raised. With regard to the question of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), of course, I never suggested for one moment that we are not going to enforce these regulations in the native territories. In fact, I told the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) that I could not consider the matter. As regards the question raised by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Van Coller) I am sorry that we did not issue a White Paper. If I had thought of it I would certainly have done so, but I think we can get over the difficulty, if it will meet the hon. member, if we now issue an explanatory note to the Chambers of Commerce, so that they will see what the implications of this Bill are. I agree that you must have the parent Act before you can understand it at all. As regards the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe) I may say that we do have surprise inspections. That is quite a regular method with us. What you call the “announced” inspections are official inspections in which we advise traders that there will be an inspector there on such a date to officially verify and stamp their instruments. That does not mean that we never have a surprise inspection. I take it that if the hon. member has not had any surprise inspections at his place, it really means that the Assize Department are quite satisfied that he, at any rate, would not have any instruments which are not correct. But that does not mean to say that we do not have surprise inspections with regard to other people. The other point he made was that we must carry out this Act. The very reason for the amendment of the Act is so that it can be carried out more efficiently in the future than it has been in the past.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I beg to move the amendments standing in my name—

1. 13. (1) This Act shall not apply in respect of—
   1. (a) fish in any waters which do not permanently or at any time of the year form part of the sea; or
   2. (b) the catching of fish in semienclosed bays, tidal rivers and estuaries along the coast of the Province of Natal, or from the foreshore in the said province.
2. (2) In this section “catching” does not include the landing of fish caught outside any such bay, river or estuary, and otherwise than from the said foreshore.

Agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I move—

This is a consequential amendment following on the adoption of the previous amendment.

Agreed to.

Remaining clause, the schedule and the title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments, amendments to be considered now.

The omission of clause 13, the new clause 13 and the amendment in clause 14 put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

I beg to move—

To be added to Division II:

This simple motion is necessary in the interests of public health. In terms of Section 48 of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, No. 13 of 1928, the Medical Council, or the Pharmacy Board, is entitled to adopt resolutions from time to time in regard to certain substances which the council or board thinks should be added to the fourth schedule of the Act.

Read the motion.

I shall come to deal with this simple motion in good old Anglo-Saxon English presently.

Anglo-Saxon!

The Pharmacy Board, if it considers that certain substances should be deemed poisons is entitled to take a resolution to that effect, and if this resolution is concurred in by the Medical Council it is forwarded to the Minister of Public Health, and the Minister, if he sees fit to do so has to bring that resolution to this House and to the Senate. If the motion is then passed by the two Houses, the substances mentioned in the resolution are added to the fourth schedule. The schedule itself is divided into two divisions, namely, Division 1 and Division 2. The items which are placed in Division 1 are items which may be dispensed by a chemist only to persons known to him and subject to the purchaser signing the “poisons book.” The items in Division 2 may be dispensed without such formality, but subject to certain labelling regulations. The usual procedure has been followed in the present case. The Public Health Department felt that these items mentioned in the motion are injurious if not supervised and that their indiscriminate use was dangerous to the public health and safety. Having made certain investigations, the Department of Public Health referred the matter to the South African Pharmacy Board, which, after due investigation, resolved that the substances mentioned in the motion should be added to the fourth schedule. Finally, the South African Medical Council in each case expressed its concurrence in the resolution of the Pharmacy Board that the schedule should be amended. May I deal very briefly with each of the four items mentioned in the motion. Let me deal with the interesting drug sulphanilamide, preparations of which such as prontosil, proseptasine, soluseptasine, uleron and M. & B. 693, have lately been placed on the market, and are frequently used. This drug M. & B. 693 has been proved to be efficacious in a number of ailments, such as pneumonia. Tests were recently made on the mines, and it was found that in 300 cases of pneumonia amongst mine natives, treated with the drug, no fatal results occurred. A very high opinion is placed upon it by medical authorities. It is, however, dangerous if it is not used in a proper way. It is also dangerous if the person taking it takes sulphur containing substances; it is dangerous for example if one takes eggs.

And cabbage.

There may be various other things of that sort.

What about listening to the speeches of the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp)?

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) realises that there might be implications which are unknown to the department itself. It recently came to the notice of the Public Health Department that a practitioner in one town was prescribing prontosil with sodium sulphate, which is one of those substances with which prontosil should not be given, because of the formation of sulphaemoglobinaemia. This bears out the fact that this new drug, which is very useful in certain cases, is being used indiscriminately, and without due recognition of its dangers and limitations. The drug should be administered with extreme care and caution, on account of various toxic properties which are exhibited. It has been found useful in the treatment of pneumonia, meningitis, and similar troubles. In the Pharmaceutical Journal, 1937, it was stated that the city of New York had forbidden the sale of sulphanilamide except on the certificate of a medical practitioner, and this action is likely to be followed throughout the United States. In all the circumstances, I think the time has come, and certainly the opinion of the medical experts is that the time has come, that this drug, efficacious as it is, should be placed in Division 1 of the fourth schedule of the Act. Then I come to the well-known drug “dinitra.” This is a preparation being a combination of dinitrophenol and lysidine, and is regarded as an extremely dangerous drug. It is being sold indiscriminately for the treatment of obesity and arthritis. The inclusion of dinitrophenols and preparations or admixtures containing dinitrophenols in Division 1 of the schedule, is to prevent or control the sale of such remedies. The next item is cocculus indicus or fish berries. This follows as a corollary to the Bill introduced by the Minister of Commerce and Industries. It is recommended that this should be included in Division 1, with a view to assisting the angling community and the inland fishing officers. The toxic principle of the berries is picrotoxine which occurs up to 2%. Picrotoxine is no longer used therapeutically, but the berries are used extensively by certain unscrupulous persons to poison fish in South African waters. The flesh of the fish so poisoned becomes toxic, and the danger of poisoning arises, apart from the fact that the waters are denuded of fish. This particular drug is also used to put what is called “a kick” into skokiaan. I now come to croton oil.

That will give a kick to somebody.

This is also a drug that is said to have a slight kick. It is not proposed to put it in Division 1, but in Division 2. This drug is sold extensively in the native territories, as a purgative, and it has dynamic effects. The dose is only half to one minim, from which it will be realised what a powerful drug it is. In Great Britain it is classed as a poison falling in Division 1. It has also been found that the drug is being used surreptitiously in attempted abortion cases. In those circumstances I think hon. members will agree that it is necessary to take steps to embody these drugs in the schedule. I therefore move.

Motion put and agreed to.

I second.

I move—

This measure embodies a number of important and very necessary principles. These principles may be broadly stated as follows: it is sought to regulate the display of advertisements outside urban areas at places visible from public roads; it is sought to prohibit the dumping of rubbish near national roads, and other roads proclaimed by administrators as building restriction roads; and it is also intended to prohibit the erection of structures near national roads, or building restriction roads, in order to prevent ribbon development. There is also a provision included in the Bill to deal with the question of allowing the National Road Board to acquire land in excess of the extent which it is capable of doing at the present time, under existing provincial ordinances. Hon. members will remember that my colleague and predecessor, the present Minister of Commerce and Industries, introduced this measure into the House last year. It was not, however, possible to proceed to the second reading stage owing to lack of time. Before the conclusion of the first session of 1939 the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), then the Prime Minister, gave an indication to the country that the Bill would be proceeded with, and that its provisions would be retrospective. Now it is of the utmost importance that this Bill should be placed upon the statute book at the earliest opportunity. It is necessary, if we are going to preserve the amenities of our rural surroundings, and if we are going to enable the National Road Board to carry out its task properly and effectively. Before dealing with the provisions of the Bill in detail, may I be allowed briefly to give a short history of the events leading up to the introduction of this Bill. It has now been under consideration for some three years by the Provincial Consultative Committee, by the National Road Board, by the Provincial Administrations, by the divisional councils of the Cape, and by other interested bodies. It finds its inception in January. 1937. In that month the Provincial Consultative Committee considered an item placed on the agenda by the Automobile Association of South Africa, which read—

It will be observed that, at the beginning, the suggestion was that steps should be taken to deal with this indiscriminate display of advertising signs near public roads. The question of ribbon development had not become an issue at that stage. The Consultative Committee resolved that this matter should be pursued through the National Roads Board, who should be asked to make enquiries abroad as to the method of procedure followed in other countries in dealing with this question. The Board went into the matter and reported to the Provincial Consultative Committee at its meeting in August, 1937, on the investigations that it had caused to be made overseas and a summary of similar legislation in force in the United States of America, England, Wales, France and Germany was submitted. The Committee resolved that the control of advertising signs on and adjacent to public roads should be left to the Provinces, but it asked that the National Roads Board should go into the question of framing the necessary legislation. The board then, at its meeting in October, 1937, considered the resolution of the Consultative Committee, and decided forthwith to proceed with the drafting of the necessary legislation. In October, 1937, the Automobile Association of South Africa published its interim report on ribbon development in South Africa. At that time, sir, it had already become abundantly clear to the Roads Board in considering inter alia the location of National Roads near the larger towns, that legislation to control ribbon development was essential, and the board welcomed the A.A.’s very able report. It was decided, therefore, to forward copies of that report to the different Townships Boards of the Union for comment, particularly as to what form the proposed legislation should take. It will be seen that at that time, October, 1937, the question of ribbon development had come into the picture, and the appropriate authorities were now considering how to link up legislation to deal both with advertising signs and the prohibition of ribbon development. It was decided to forward copies of the A.A. report to the different Townships Boards of the Union for comment, particularly as to what form the proposed legislation should take. Then the Provincial Consultative Committee resolved, in February, 1938, that the draft Advertising on Roads Legislation should be forwarded to the several Provincial Administrations and placed on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting of the committee. The National Roads Board then ascertained from the Government law advisers that the proposed legislation would be ultra vires the Provincial Councils, and it was decided, therefore, to draft legislation in the form of a Bill for consideration by Parliament. In July, 1938, the Provincial Consultative Committee agreed in principle to the draft of the Advertising on Roads Bill. At that stage it was still confined to advertising and had no reference to ribbon development. The committee decided, however, that each Provincial Administration should forward its comment to the National Roads Board and, if necessary, amendment would be effected by the board, and it was decided that the final draft of the Bill should be submitted to the committee at its next meeting. The National Roads Board had in the meanwhile completed its investigation on the question of ribbon development. It was originally the intention to deal only with advertising on roads in one Bill, and it was then thought that the question of ribbon development might be dealt with in a separate Bill. The board felt, however, that the questions of advertising on roads and ribbon development were so, closely connected that both measures should be brought into one Bill. This was accordingly done. The draft Advertising and Ribbon Development Bill was submitted to the Provincial Consultative Committee at its meeting in January, 1939, and agreed to by that body after a number of amendments had been made. The Bill was introduced into the House in May, 1939, but, as I have already pointed out, my predecessor was not able to proceed with it owing to pressure of time and it was on that occasion that the former Prime Minister made the announcement to which I have referred. I have given these details of the genesis of this Bill in order to indicate to hon. members that its subject matter has been very thoroughly thrashed out and considered by all the appropriate authorities in the country, and I think that I am justified in saying that it is an agreed measure. It is very urgently asked for, not merely by the National Roads Board, but by local authorities. The Divisional Council of the Cape is most anxious to see this measure on the Statute Book. Certain difficulties are being encountered in regard to the appropriation of land in Natal at the present time because we have not certain provisions of this Act on the Statute Book.

Natal again.

Well, there are difficulties in other provinces as well. It is urgently necessary and I introduce it to the House as an agreed measure, something which is necessary in the national interest. If we can place this measure on the Statute Book at present we may prevent incalculable harm being done to our national roads and their environment. A similar Act was passed in Great Britain but there a great deal of harm had already been done. Here we are still fortunately in the position of being able to prevent the bulk of the harm that might otherwise be done. One is able to see on a road such as that between Johannesburg and Pretoria examples of, what is known as ribbon development, structures of all kinds springing up along the road, and we are anxious to avoid that for reasons which I shall elaborate as I go along. Now, let me deal with the clauses of this Bill. Sections 2 to 6 deal with the control of advertisements and rubbish dumps. Hon. members will agree when I say anyone who has travelled along roads in the Union must have noticed with great concern the large number of unsightly advertisements displayed in view of public roads, advertisements of every conceivable shape and size, erected in many instances on dilapidated structures disfiguring the countryside. Then one sees advertisements painted on rocks or displayed by means of whitewashed stones on the hillside. Frequently they are displayed on structures erected in such proximity to the roadway that they constitute a definite danger to the travelling public by obstructing the view of drivers and distracting their attention from the road. And it is not uncommon to see quite close to the road rubbish dumps containing the remains of discarded machinery and broken-down cars. Again, I have recollections of the Johannesburg—Pretoria road, where accidents so frequently happen, and along that road one sees the remnants of broken machinery and broken cars. Apart from the few provisions and regulations promulgated by Divisional Councils there has been no firm effort by way of legislation to control such advertisements or the dumping of rubbish along the roads of the Union. Legislation in Great Britain, France and the United States of America has been consulted and very useful information obtained by the National Reads Board. Clauses 2 to 6 of this Bill deal with those two matters, and I think it will be agreed that the time has come for such legislation. I shall, at a later stage, very briefly refer to the clauses of the Bill separately, but I now come to the clauses that deal with the control of ribbon development, clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill. Road travellers must have often pondered over a state of affairs which has tacitly allowed the development of these unorganised and haphazard buildings all along certain sections of our main road with frontages bordering on or close to the roadway. In 1935 Great Britain faced up to this problem and passed an Act, but as I pointed out, unfortunately much of the evil had been allowed to take place. If in South Africa the problem is tackled forthwith and the erection of buildings within a certain distance of the road is controlled, it will still be possible to save the situation to a great degree. From a road point of view there are two main objections to ribbon development. In the first place, if buildings are erected along the road it will not be possible to widen them when necessary at some future date, except at prohibitive cost by way of compensation. The possible necessity for widening many of our main roads, in view of increased traffic, and, inter alia, to provide for trek paths for stock, cannot possibly be overlooked. In the second place, ribbon development along a main road naturally increases the number of side roads entering the main road, and that inevitably tends to endanger and slow down traffic on the main road, and increases the danger to human beings, particularly children who live close to such roads. That second danger cannot be over-emphasised. Hon. members may say what are the causes of this ribbon development, this residential element along the main road. Well, the reason for it is undoubtedly chiefly economic, the desire to reside outside an urban area where construction costs are low. That is understandable. Rates are non-existent and the person who goes outside the urban area is able to have his cake and eat it; he lives virtually within a rural area and yet within easy distance of town. A great many of these periurban areas have sprung up in recent years, and hon. members who have had the opportunity of reading the recent report of the Sir Edward Thornton Commission will realise the evils flowing from the establishment of these townships outside the urban areas, evils not merely from the point of view of town planning and haphazard development, but evils from the health point of view. Very grave evils indeed arise and where there is no control we may get a state of affairs where drastic action becomes necessary. This cheap uncontrolled development on the outskirts of the town is always undesirable and has created many black spots near our South African towns. Even the better class of residential development invariably leads to congestion on the roads with the result that there is a diversion of through-traffic for which the road was originally constructed. Then, as I have already pointed out, there are these public health considerations which are most important. Thus while the immediate purpose of preventing ribbon development is to preserve the amenities of the trunk roads for through-traffic the long-range object of the Bill is to discourage the establishment of a number of townships along the main road and to foster the planned and rational development of the towns. Now may I briefly refer to the provisions of the Bill itself. Another important principle involved in this Bill is the provision which enables the Roads Board to appropriate a larger width of road than is at present provided for in the existing provincial ordinances. From time to time, representations have been made to the National Roads Board, that roads approaching the major towns do not adequately provide for presentday traffic, and these roads should be widened. Existing legislation provides for a road reserve of only 100 feet, and it is, therefore, necessary in order to give effect to these representations that the Board should be able to appropriate additional land for road reserve up to a possible width of 220 feet. If this is approved, it should be made perfectly clear that persons interested in the land so appropriated shall be entitled to compensation. At present I understand the position is under the local provincial ordinance that certain land may be expropriated—certain quitrent land may be expropriated without compensation. In terms of this Bill whatever additional land is expropriated will be compensated for—the owner of such land will be compensated. Now clauses 2 to 6, as I indicated earlier, these clauses deal with the restriction on the exhibition of advertising signs. The Bill from its very nature has to be drafted in a somewhat complicated fashion, and at first sight it may appear to be rather difficult to follow. In actual fact the provisions fall within a very simple compass and can easily be understood. The provisions of the Bill refer only to roads in rural areas, not in urban areas. That is the first point. It deals with roads in rural areas, roads in those areas where development is taking place now and will take place in future, but in terms of section 2 advertisements which are visible from a public road in urban areas will be allowed to remain. They will not be affected by the provisions of this Act, but after six months it will be possible for the controlling authority to order the owner of the advertisement either to modify them or to remove them. The controlling authority referred to is in the case of national roads the National Roads Board. In the case of other roads it is the Administrator of the province concerned. In the Cape Province it is competent for the Administrator to allow the divisional councils to be the controlling authority in their particular areas. Members will have seen from the definition clause that we refer in this Bill to declared roads and to building restriction roads. Declared roads are national roads, roads which have been declared roads under the National Roads Act. Building restriction roads are roads other than national roads which may have been declared building restriction roads by the Administrator—they would be provincial main roads, or other roads in a province. At one time it was felt that the powers of dealing with advertisements and ribbon development should vest in the National Roads Board, but representations were made by the local authorities and eventually a compromise was arrived at under which the control of roads other than declared roads, namely, national roads, should be vested in the Administrator of the province concerned. Then, again, the Administrator in the Cape is allowed to vest that control in divisional councils if he should see fit to do so. Advertisements existing at the commencement of this Act are left undisturbed, but after a period of six months it is competent for the controlling authority to order their removal or alteration. No new advertisements which are visible from a public road may be erected without the permission of the controlling authority unless such advertisements fall under the provisos to section 2. For instance, persons may erect certain advertisements without the prior authority of the controlling authority which, for instance, indicate the nature of a business which is being carried on. A farmer may be allowed to have an advertisement near his land saying, “Shooting Prohibited,” or that type of thing. There is no restriction on that. No advertisements which fall within the provisos of section 2 need have the prior permission of the controlling authorities. For instance, one sees on the way to Constantia farm stalls, and there are advertisements indicating such stalls. It will not be necessary to get the prior permission of the controlling authority for such advertisements. There is just one other proviso to the proviso, namely, that any advertisements which may be erected without the prior consent of the controlling authority must conform to regulations which the Minister may publish in terms of clause 14 (1) (b) where the Minister is given authority to publish general regulations relating to advertisements, and even advertisements where no prior permission is required must conform to these regulations. Section 3 of the Bill provides the means for the controlling authority giving permission for the erection of advertisements, etc. Section 4 deals with the power given to the controlling authority to insist on the removal or alteration of advertisements, and it is in that section that we find the provision that no advertisements existing at the commencement of the Act may be touched until six months have elapsed. Section 5 deals with certain presumptions which are necessary for the due carrying out of the Act. Section 6 deals with exceptions. It provides that sections 2 and 4 shall not apply in connection with any advertisement which is displayed on a vehicle used on a public road if it is proved that the main purpose for which such a vehicle is used is not for the display of such advertisement. For instance, a motor car may have a notice displaying something about a Hospital Rag. The main purpose of the vehicle is not to display that advertisement, but to proceed along the road, and there is no objection there. It is provided in section 6 that urban areas are excluded. Then we come to section 7 which is the first clause dealing with ribbon development. That is the clause which enables the Administrators to declare building restriction roads. In terms of the definition clause all national roads are declared roads, and in terms of section 7 the Administrator of each province may declare roads to be building restriction roads. Section 8 makes provision for the prohibition of the dumping of rubbish near building restriction roads, and declared roads. Section 9 is the clause which deals with ribbon development along building restriction roads and declared roads. This is the clause which lays down that along a declared road or building restriction road no person shall erect or permit the erection of any structure within a distance of 300 Cape feet, from the centre line of such road. In other words along your national road and your building restriction road it is the intention of this Bill to sterilise the space of 200 yards, 300 Cape feet from the centre of that road on each side. That is 100 yards on each side. It is proposed to sterilise 200 yards along your national road and your building restriction road, and no building may take place within that sterilised portion, without the prior permission of the controlling authority. There is, however, provision under sub-section 2 of section 9 under which the Minister of the Interior may allow that sterilised portion of 300 Cape feet on each side to be reduced to 120 Cape feet on each side. In actual practice it will work this way. There maybe occasions, we will say where a farmer wishes to put up a structure nearer than 300 feet to the centre of a road. In such an individual case that farmer, or person concerned, will go to the National Roads Board and make representations, and if the Board is satisfied that it is not undesirable that that application should be granted, it may make representations to the controlling authority, and that authority will have the right to allow the farmer to build; individual cases will be dealt with by the controlling authority via the National Roads Board. The Minister is not concerned with individual cases, he is concerned with a portion of the road where it is thought desirable to lessen the distance along the whole length approaching a town. It may be unnecessary or undesirable to have that. In such cases the Minister may have a consultation with the controlling authority and by notice in the Gazette declare that with reference to any declared or building restriction road the defined distance of 300 Cape feet shall be reduced to a smaller distance of not less than 120 Cape feet. Hon. members will see how this works. There is provision for what may be termed hard cases. There is provision for granting an exemption by the controlling authority concerned. The Minister only enters into the picture if it is desired to lessen that width along a long portion. Section 10 deals with the restriction of access to land along fences. It would be obvious that it is most undesirable along a national road to have a large number of side roads running into the national road, so provision is made for the restriction of such communicating roads, due regard being had to the needs of land adjacent to national roads. Hon. members will remember that in terms of the National Roads Act there is provision under which if a national road goes through a farm, the board has to give access to the farm owner to that road by means of a grill or possibly a gate, and any such facility given is not touched by the provision of this Bill. The owner of the farm through which the road goes will still have his access to that national road by means of a grill or possibly a gate. Section 11 deals with the restriction on the establishment of townships or expansion of townships. It seeks to deal with the evil following upon the sub-division of farms and the resultant springing up of small houses. This clause was put in at the request of the authorities, of the Surveyor-General and the Townships Board. It had been found that the Townships Act was frustrated by the sub-division of farms, and the intention of this section is to circumvent ribbon development through the indiscriminate development of townships under the Townships Act and by the sub-division of farms. Then section 12 relates to the mining commissioner and lays down that the controlling authority shall consult the mining commissioners in certain cases where roads pass over proclaimed land. Section 13 deals with appeals. This Bill sets up certain machinery in terms of which persons aggrieved at the decisions of the controlling authority under sections 9, 10 and 11, may appeal to the Minister. The necessary machinery is laid down there. Section 14 deals with regulations, and section 15 with penalties. Then I come finally to refer to section 17, which is important. Section 17 is the clause which enables the Administrator of a province, on the recommendation of a Road Board, after consultation with the local authorities concerned, within whose area of jurisdiction is situated any land to which the recommendation relates—it enables the Administrator to appropriate a strip of land outside the urban area alongside any section of a declared road for the purpose of widening the road if its width as fixed or determined in terms of the law applicable, is in the opinion of the board, insufficient for the volume of traffic which ordinarily passes or is likely to pass in future over that section, provided that the width of the road shall not exceed 220 Cape feet. That is the section which gives the Road Board, through the local Administrators, power to expropriate a larger extent of land than the board is able to do under existing provincial legislation. For instance, hon. members know that at the present time the Minister of Railways and Harbours is busy, through his technical advisers, on the lay-out of new Cape Town resulting from the new harbour developments. The national road from the north will have to link up with this scheme. It may be desirable that that national road, when it comes into new Cape Town should be wider than 100 feet. There is no power at the present time to enable the Road Board to accomplish that object. This provision in the Bill will enable it to do so. It will now enable expropriation to take place up to the extent of 220 Cape feet. The clause specifically lays down that the owner of the land expropriated must be compensated for the loss of such land. That goes further than the existing ordinance and makes it clear that it is compensation for actual loss, and not merely for hypothetical loss.

Who will decide the amount of compensation?

If the hon. member refers to Section 17 (5) he will see that the Administrator concerned is first of all empowered to offer compensation, and then it says—

Earlier in that clause it will be seen that the compensation is to be determined in accordance with the law in force in that province. The law in the province provides for arbitration in cases of dispute. Initially, the Administrator will offer compensation, but if this is not accepted by the owner of the land, the law of arbitration is to be invoked. That will come into operation. I have tried as briefly as possible, to give a bird’s eye view of the Bill. I repeat that it is an urgent necessity to place this measure on the statute book. Its provisions are going to help to increase the amenities of our country, to preserve the natural beauties of our countryside, and they will help the National Road Board to carry on the great national work it has been doing for the last five years, work which is going to be of incalculable value to the future of South Africa. In those circumstances, I hope hon. members will be able to give this measure a favourable reception. I beg to move.

I only wish to say a few words on this Bill, but I first of all want to express the hope that the Minister will pay a little more attention to the titles of his Bills, especially when we are dealing with a measure taken over from a foreign country, a Bill taken over from England and then translated into Afrikaans. The title of this Bill as it stands sounds atrocious to me. “Beperking van Advertensies en Streepbebouing Wetsontwerp.” The English of it is “Advertising and Ribbon Development Restriction Bill.” “Ribbon development” has a definite meaning to everyone in England, because it is something which has been going on there for years, and it has a specific meaning. But here it does not mean anything, nor can one translate these words properly into Afrikaans. I would suggest to my hon. friend to confer with his translator so as to arrange a more suitable title, and I would suggest something like this—“Public Road Defacement and Building Act.” That gives a meaning to it which everybody will understand. Let us take the position of the man who has to look up something in this Bill. What is he going to look for? Will he have to look under “Restriction” or “Advertising” or what? I should like these questions to be kept in mind because this is not the first time this sort of thing has happened This is an old error on the part of the people responsible for these translations, and I think they should make an effort to find more suitable titles. Now I want to say that I and all of us regard this as a very necessary measure, and I desire to wish the Minister good luck with it. But I also wish to make a few remarks which I hope the Minister will take note of, when this Bill is being discussed in Committee. I notice that one of the principal points I had intended bringing to his notice has already been brought to his notice. My attention was drawn to this some eighteen months or two years ago, when the Bill was first brought before this House, namely the hardship which may as a result of this Bill be created for the farmers, and especially for those farmers in areas where intensive cultivation is going on—in areas such as Elgin, and surrounding parts—places such as Paarl and Swellendam, and similar districts. I want to say first of all that when the House was informed that this Bill would have retrospective force, one of the farmers concerned approached me and pointed out that if the Bill was to be retrospective to the date mentioned, he and others would suffer great hardships, because they were already working on those lands where intensive cultivation was going on, and those lands were under fruit trees and a number of buildings had already been erected. Those buildings would have to be removed without compensation as they had been put up subsequent to the dates laid down. This would be a great hardship, so far as those farmers were concerned, but I take it that that is one of the instances in respect of which amendments will be introduced when the proper authorities have the matter brought to their notice. I also want to point out that in a country which is still sparsely populated the position is a peculiar one, so far as it effects towns and villages still to be laid out in days to come. In England this so-called “ribbon development” has come about owing to the fact that in the suburbs or the small towns outside London, people all wanted to build their houses along the main road so that they would be able to let those houses easily, as the man renting a house like that would be able to step out of his house into a bus, which, of course, meant that he could have all the comforts and conveniences associated with living outside town. This position was responsible for this so-called ribbon development in England. In South Africa, however, we have a very different condition of affairs and circumstances here differ very greatly from those prevailing overseas, in European countries. Although many of our conditions have their origin in Europe, we should not lose sight of the fact that if in this country we start restricting development, in the way they do in England, we shall be acting in a manner which will prove detrimental to the farmers, and furthermore we shall be doing something which will result in our stopping the very development which we reed in this country, but which they do not require overseas. Let us for instance take the question of the planning of towns and dorps. One cannot just design a town anywhere in the same way as people can do in Europe. Nor is there any necessity for towns or dorps to be planned everywhere, but I do feel that towns or dorps may spring up along the main roads, and I feel it is desirable that they should do, so. I feel furthermore that conditions and circumstances prevailing in this country should be borne in mind when the question of where and how one should build is being considered. Let us take the case of a road passing over or through a river. In days gone by the towns were laid out far away from the river, but it is being realised to-day that it is beneficial to be near a river and to build near a river. For that reason I hope this Bill will be carefully scrutinised by the advisers, as it is for the experts to make sure that nothing is done under this measure which will have the effect of restricting development, because development is the thing we should aim at for the future. There is one other point which we should not lose sight of in this connection. In a large country such as we have here, with such a diversity of surface area — in a country where we have mountains and koppies and plains and divergent conditions of that kind, there is no necessity such as there is in Europe for the imposition of restrictions and for protection being extended to the roads as is the case in England where the country is level and the hills and dales are not very prominent, and where if an ordinary house is put up along a road, people in other houses have their view of the neighbouring surrounding country obstructed. I am suggesting this so that we should not lose sight of these minor points, because if we do lose sight of them we may interfere with the general development of the country. I only wish to say these few words, and when the House goes into Committee on the Bill I hope hon. members will pay attention to these points, but in the meantime the experts who have given their advice on the principles of this Bill should have their attention drawn to these matters.

There will be very few hon. members in this House who will not welcome the provisions of this Bill in so far as they aim at making possible the establishment of all-weather national roads in this country. My purpose in rising to-day is to deal with the extent to which private rights are to be invaded by the introduction of this Bill and the somewhat ungenerous methods of compensation that owners will have to be content with. Under present conditions in the province from whence I come the title deeds of the ordinary private owner of land contain a servitude over his land under which he is expected to provide a road of a certain width. He is entitled to compensation only where that road invades cultivated land or land which has a building on it. Now, the effect of this Bill is to widen the area of that servitude considerably. Whereas previously the private owner was expected to provide a road of a certain width he is now called upon to provide one of much greater width.

Twice as wide.

Yes, twice as wide, as the hon. member reminds me. And although in the past there has not been a great deal of outcry against the operation of the servitude, with the introduction of the national roads cases have occurred in which extreme hardship has been suffered by private owners. I need only mention the case of one of my own constituents, who lives at High Flats in my division. He had bought a building plot in an adjoining constituency on the South Coast solely for building purposes, but the national road has gone plumb through the middle of his plot, rendering it utterly useless for building, and the only reply he gets is: “Under the law of the land you are obliged to provide the servitude; you have done so, and that is all we can say.” He does not get a penny of compensation. If the effect of the Minister’s Bill is going to be to perpetuate that and render it more severe, I think there should be some safeguards provided in the Bill. I have had protests from local authorities in my constituency that are not described in the definition of “urban areas.” The present definition includes city and municipal councils, village councils or town boards. But there are smaller authorities than that — there are health boards in some places in my constituency — and the effect of this Bill will be that where certain owners of plots had built close up to, the road they may get compensation in respect of the disturbance to their property, but in the case of the man next door, who has not yet built, he apparently will receive nothing for the virtual confiscation of his building plot. He must provide the servitude without getting a penny of compensation, and that is going to be an extreme hardship in cases of that kind. In any case if restraint is going to be put on these people to prevent them from making use of the land which they have bought it is going to be very unfair unless they get a return of the money, or even more than the money which they paid. There is a growing feeling against the operation of this Act if it is going to entail such sacrifices as this. I have had quite a volume of correspondence from people who, feel that that aspect of the Ribbon Development Bill will require amendment before it can be applied with any idea of justice to private owners of small plots. I mention this at this early stage in the hope that the Minister will be able to meet us so as to prevent hardships falling on those who will be affected.

I listened attentively to the lecture which the hon. the Minister gave us in moving the second reading of this Bill. We also had the opportunity of hearing the chairman of the National Roads Board in connection with the construction of national roads—both most interesting subjects. I wish to emphasise something which struck me, something which has already been mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely, this: what is this ribbon development? We do not know what it is; we do not understand it. And the more so as the Minister in introducing this Bill stated that it resulted from the experience of countries which he mentioned, countries such as America, England, Wales, France and Germany, all of them thickly populated countries. We may learn from the experience of such countries, because their experience is surely not applicable to a sparsely populated country like South Africa. In this country we have large uninhabited areas where the people still have to be settled, and to have the temerity at this stage to apply restrictions which may be very well for thickly populated areas, seems to be absolutely wrong, so far as a sparsely populated country like South Africa is concerned. No, it does not suit this country. It is quite correct that there is a need for legislation to safeguard our traffic and to prevent the defacement of our roads and certainly the defacement of our scenery, and things like that. But to demand of us here that we should pass legislation which may apply to other thickly populated countries, seems to be quite wrong. I should also like to discuss with the Minister of the Interior a few of the clauses appearing in this Bill. In clause 1 we have the “definitions,” and in those definitions there is a very wide description of the word “Advertisement.” This is what it says—

This embraces a lot of things. I am quite prepared to agree that there are many things which look ugly, which deface the surroundings, and that many dangers may be created, especially where symbols or lights are employed for advertising purposes, and this applies especially to thickly populated areas, and in this respect it applies to our towns which are thickly populated. Here in the streets of Cape Town we do not notice those symbols and light advertisements in day time, but at night they are illuminated. At night time one is struck by those lights and next to them there are other lights, robots regulating the traffic, and there are also “stop” signs and other indications.

This Bill does not apply to the towns.

If that is so it is useless, because so far as the wide open spaces are concerned it means nothing. It is wanted for the towns. If we drive through the streets at night we behold red lights, green lights and all sorts of lights which are intended for advertisement purposes, and alongside those lights we see robots for the regulation of traffic. If this Bill does not apply to the towns, it has no meaning at all, because it is a Bill which should deal with thickly populated areas. How dare the Minister tell me that a measure of this kind does not apply to Cape Town, Johannesburg and towns like that? It has to be there for the protection of our national roads, our streets, and all the rest of it, and it must be universal in its application, otherwise it means nothing; otherwise it will only have the effect of providing for the expropriation of ground belonging to people in the rural districts, and it will only be used to deprive people of their rights in the suburbs round about Bethlehem for instance. I can realise the necessity for steps being taken against the defacement of the countryside along the main roads, but here in Cape Town and Johannesburg anything may apparently be done. No, I certainly cannot agree to this Bill if it is not to apply in the municipalities, and if what is to apply to people outside the towns is not to apply to the towns themselves. If the towns are to be exempted this Bill means nothing. We know quite well that if a stranger passes through the streets of Cape Town he often cannot make out whether there is a red danger sign or not, simply because so many other signs and signals have been put up. Does the Minister not realise this? If he does not realise it, he can not realise the detrimental effects which this well intended Bill may have. No, legislation of this kind under which the towns are exempted is not going to take us any further. While the Minister wants to introduce legislation for the protection and the security and the preservation of everything beautiful along the national roads, he at the same time wants to allow the people in the towns to go on just as they please. But surely we are passing legislation here for all the provinces, and that being so these matters should also be controlled in the municipalities—the municipalities should be brought within the scope of a Bill of this kind. Now there are a few other matters I wish to touch upon: first of all there is this question of the removal of advertisements, “prohibition of certain advertisements visible from public roads.” This is to apply along the national roads and other proclaimed roads and certain advertisements have to be removed. I am very much surprised at the Minister saying that this is not to apply to the towns, and I cannot support this Bill unless it is to be of general force and effect. The Minister referred to the necessity for the introduction of this Bill for thickly populated areas. But why, if there is that necessity, is he going to exclude, to exempt, thickly populated areas? Undoubtedly some advertisements are very ugly. I should also like to see anyone who is doing advertising being obliged to put up a nice and neat advertisement. But the question, to my mind is, whether the Minister realises the fact that advertisements and signs along the road are of the greatest assistance to travellers using those roads? The Minister told us that the provisions contained in this Bill are in accordance with the views put forward by the automobile associations. He told us that to a very large extent this Bill has been drafted on their suggestions. Those associations have contributed very considerably in the direction of putting up signs and other indications along our roads, but the fact remains that we are of opinion that advertisements are one of the best means of bringing our goods to the notice of the public. In my area, for instance, there are health resorts and a farmer put up a notice near his farm that he has accommodation for paying guests. We are now to be prevented from putting such notices along the road. One is no longer to be allowed to advertise this fact on one’s own farm. One is not even to be allowed to advertise the name of one’s farm.

Oh, yes!

That is fine. I am glad to hear it. Am I allowed to advertise my business?

Yes.

Well, that is fortunate, but certain rules and regulations are to be laid down. That is what I wanted to know. We now come to another point, namely the removal of anything ugly, unsightly. Quite right. Along the national road leaving Cape Town, passing the cemeteries, we find many things which are very unsightly. For instance, one passes places where old wrecks of motor cars have been dumped down. Are those people going to be compelled to remove these things? They are visible from the roads. I quite agree that no town or dorp or individual should be allowed to dump his manure heap, or his ash heap along the roadside, but in my constituency the national road in some instances passes a shed, or a kraal belonging to a farm. What is the position going to be there? The road, so to speak, passes the kitchen or the kraal, or the stables of a farm, and it is impossible to have those in different places. I understand that this is to be permitted under the law if it can be proved that there is no alternative, and I am glad to notice that that is to be considered, but what exactly are the restrictions to be? I come back to this question of advertisements, and other things which are properly erected. In how far are those things to be prohibited by the National Roads Board, or by this piece of legislation? Advertisements which are not visible to the travelling public are useless. Say I advertise, for instance, “For good service come to Roelf van der Merwe,” or “For first class value come to Roelf van der Merwe.” I pay the person concerned for my space. Have I to remove an advertisement like that? And how am I to advertise? I know that my reputation advertises itself, but in spite of that one wants to advertise the fact that one can render good service, and one has to bring this fact to the notice of people passing along the road. For instance, I may want to advertise the sale of furniture, “Come to Roelf van der Merwe,” and a little further along, “For ploughs and farming implements come to Van der Merwe.” At the four or five roads leading into my town I have such a system of advertising, not only along the national road, but also along other public roads. What is the law going to do to me? Am I to remove those advertisements? This may be looked upon as a defacement of a space of 6 feet or of trees, or of other things, within view of the roads. I can quite understand the need for legislation of this kind, but why should we base our legislation on the example of England, America, Wales, France and Germany, as the Minister said? That is something I cannot understand. Let us pass legislation suitable to the requirements of South Africa. Let us do all we can to have safe roads and to remove all signs which are dangerous to the safety of human beings, but we can easily go too far. Now I wish to touch on the position of people who may have say five morgen lots outside a town, or round-about a town. Those lots may be the future suburbs, because a place like Bethlehem expands and each of these lots may possibly become an erf and may be taken up into the town of Bethlehem. Owners of these lots are now expected to give up 220 feet instead of 120 feet. I can quite imagine that it may be necessary to do something like that in a town like Cape Town which, unfortunately, has never been properly planned, never been properly laid out from the point of view of becoming a town, because it originally was only a small settlement, and the possibility of great expansion was never anticipated. I can quite understand that it will be difficult with the increasing population to get additional street space for the handling of traffic, but so far as those plots of land are concerned, there should be reasonable compensation. The value of the land which may be expropriated to the extent of 220 feet has to be taken into account. There should be proper provision for compensation. Quite a number of people may be affected because the national roads will naturally have to run as straight as possible—they will have to be carried on like an extension of the main street in Bethlehem, Kerk Street. I am quite in agreement with that being done, but I feel uneasy about the question of compensation for expropriation. Finally, in connection with what the Leader of the Opposition has said, I should also like to refer to the short title. I have already dealt with it very briefly. I trust that the chairman of the National Roads Board who, I believe, is a language expert, will not be satisfied with such a title. He has allowed himself in the drafting of this Bill to be guided by the model of America, England, Wales, France and Germany, but this term “Streep-bebouing” will have to be changed, and he will have to get some other wording, as recommended by the Leader of the Opposition—he will have to get a term which we shall be able to understand.

I may say that on this occasion the absence of hon. members from the House must be an indication that they heartily approve of the Bill, the details of which have been so clearly explained by the hon. the Minister. For a few minutes I wish to deal with the matter which is in direct conflict with the point of view expressed by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). I think under the provisions laid down in clause 17 the Minister is going in a direction opposite to that in which he should go, by granting compensation to owners of land, small areas of which may be required from time to time in order to widen the national roads. I feel that any public expenditure has been shown, from an economic point of view, very frequently — in fact almost invariably — to improve the value of private ownership in any part in which that public expenditure is made. If land in the rural areas were left without the amenities such as decent roads, obviously the value of the land would not be as great as it is bound to become when you have decent roads built and opportunities given of travelling to and fro from the large centres of population. In normal circumstances where public expenditure, especially in a matter like this, is involved, and advantages are given not only to the general public, but to the owners of the land through which such a road passes, in some parts of the world you have the principle whereby the state reimburses itself by the imposition of a land tax. That is a position to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance; one day he may find it to be a source of revenue. In these circumstances there is no question of land taxation, and I am not at the moment advocating it. Apart from that, by this expenditure on national roads the value of land generally through which the roads travel, is improved, and not only is nothing taken from the owner by way of taxation in connection with the improved value of the land, but instead of that the Minister, in order presumably to meet onpcsition such as that of the hon. member for Illovo, has widened the provisions of the law and is now making provision for special compensation in respect of such areas. I think that is a wrong principle, which the Minister should not embark upon in dealing with the object of developing our national roads in South Africa. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will reconsider this part of the Bill, section 17 of the Bill, with the object at least of reverting to the position of the law as it stands at present, instead of giving further opportunities for compensation, which do not even now meet the hon. member for Illovo, in that he thinks they are inadequate. Instead of falling to the blandishments of the hon. member for Illovo, as he fell to the blandishments of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. Shearer) last night and exempted Natal from the provisions of a Bill which should have applied to South Africa generally, I hope the Minister, in this instance, will say that not only will he not accept amendments to give better opportunities for compensation, but that he will reconsider the whole question of granting compensation to landowners, where they are asked to make a moderate grant of land to improve roads, and also to improve the condition of the country and themselves.

I wish to avail myself of this opportunity most heartily to welcome the main principles of this Bill, that is to say the two important principles of this Bill, dealing with the closing up of roads and the despoiling of nature. These are two outstanding principles dealt with and I feel convinced that everyone in this House welcomes the provisions of the Bill on those points. There is one departure, however, which I cannot agree with, and that is that we are trying here to introduce provisions which will result in our eventually not being able to take one step without contravening some regulation or other. This particularly applies to that part of the Bill which imposes restrictions on extensions of the ordinary buildings of farmers, and this is a matter which I should like to make clear. I feel that amendments should be introduced in respect of these particular points, and I hope to do so later on. In connection, however, with the development taking place in this country, and the national roads that are being built, this Bill will undoubtedly be of great value. I hope I shall be allowed to refer to a few points so as to show where I think too many restrictions are being imposed. If we look at clause 2, for instance, it will be seen that it is laid down there that no one shall display any advertisements which will be visible from a public road. It would appear to me that the name of a town, for instance, will no longer be allowed to be displayed on the side of a hill or some other prominent place, in spite of the fact that such a display must be of great value to our air service, and also for other purposes.

They can obtain permission.

Yes, but it looks as if we have to obtain permission for everything in future, and I feel that the Minister should introduce some provision making it clear that this can be done without special permission being obtained, especially in view of the fact that a sign of this kind is a great help to our air service, and will be of even greater value in the future. In paragraph (b) it is stated that only advertisements relating to goods which are manufactured, or services rendered at a particular place, shall be allowed to be displayed. In other words, a farmer is only allowed to display a small advertisement if it is in relation to a commodity produced on his farm. It would appear to me that this is a dangerous provision. Let me instance the case of a person who will fall under this provision. I know of a man who is in the habit of purchasing stud rams by the hundred when they are small; he rears them and then sells them when they are fully grown. Those animals, therefore, are not the direct product of his farm, and it would appear to me that that man will not be allowed to place on his gate an advertisement saying: “Stud rams for sale.” Then let me come to sub-section (d), which says—

We know that the Cape Province regulations — I do not know whether the same applies to the other provinces — require us to have a fairly large board on each gate, the board to be made of corrugated iron. The farmers do not buy any such boards, but the advertising people are prepared to put up nice-looking advertisement boards containing, for instance, a motor-car tyre. Under the provision I have read this will no longer be allowed.

No, that is one of the exceptions; the notices on gates are exempted.

But only the name of the owner of the place is allowed to be shown. If there is an advertisement for petrol or tyres or anything of that kind it is not to be shown. I think it should be made clear in this provision that on the gates, at least, advertisements shall be allowed to be shown. I cannot see to what extent that will spoil the beauty of the road. We are not going to have any gates on our national roads — in any case there should be no gates on national roads — but on the A and B roads there will be gates, and it is there that we shall have our difficulties.

What sort of advertisements are you referring to?

Well, the kind of advertisements we have there to-day.

You mean “Close the gate and smoke Springbok tobacco”?

Yes, that kind of thing, but under this Bill that will no longer be allowed. The farmers in the Cape Province find it most useful that the large advertising people send them boards to attach to their gates and so far as the public are concerned these large boards act as a warning that they have to stop. But what is more, as I am going to shew, it is not only unfair to all the farmers, but we find for instance that at the first gate on entering a town one will come across an advertisement “Patronise the boarding-house of Mr. So-and-so.” This sort of thing is most helpful to the individual who does not want to go to an hotel, and when he gets to a town, or to a small dorp, he can enquire for a boarding-house. That will no longer be allowed now. I take it that a regulation of this kind is essential to prevent the view being spoilt but where an advertisement of this kind is fixed to a gate I cannot see in what way it defaces the beauty or spoils the road. Now let me come to clause 6 which says this—

The Minister said that the main object of this Bill is not to allow any advertisements which will spoil the beauty or which are unsightly, but I should like to know whether this is also going to apply to provincial elections, or even parliamentary elections, when posters are attached to motor cars, as used to be done in the past, bearins the words, “Vote for so and so.” The Minister knows what the practice has been in the past. Are we in future not going to allow motor cars to have posters with the inscription, “Vote for the Hertzog Party because it is the best.” Now let me come to clause 7. Here, too. I feel that it contains a provision to which I shall have to move an amendment. It says—

I feel that here we should add the words “after consultation with the divisional council concerned.”

You have divisional councils in the Cape Province only.

Yes, at the moment I am only referring to the Cape Province. The other provinces have no divisional councils and I believe that the Administrators there can do as they please. But here in the Cape Province we are very proud of our divisional councils because they sometimes do better work than even the House of Assembly. And if the divisional councils are ignored, and the power is placed in the hands of the Administrator alone to make regulations under this clause, I feel that it is only right in view of the excellent co-operation there has always been in the past, and which we hope will continue to prevail in the future, that the divisional councils should be consulted beforehand. Now I want to come to clause 8, sub-section (2) which reads as follows—

I feel here that the Minister is doing a great injustice to the individual who finds himself in such an unfortunate position. It would appear to me that the Minister had in mind areas or places close to a garage. But in the North-West we have places which are from eighty to a hundred miles away from the nearest garage, even along our main roads. An accident may happen, a car may be burnt out along the road, and the owner may be taken to hospital. He may be in hospital for longer than fourteen days, and at the end of fourteen days the car may be removed at his expense, and he is liable to a fine of £50. This sort of thing is absolutely unjust, and I want to ask the Minister in all earnestness to consider the question of an amendment there, and I shall move that that period be increased to twenty-one days or thirty days. An hon. member suggests the insertion of the word “reasonable,” or of the words “in the circumstances.” If such a provision is made we should have to know that the person who will have the right to decide will decide reasonably. Now we come to clause 9 (1) and I wish to refer to sub-section (c) which says—

Here an exception is made that such a case shall not fall within the provision of this clause. These people may now build as they please. But why burden only the farmer? The farmer again has a greater burden imposed on him—a burden which will not apply to a man living in a town or a dorp. I have in mind a case where a farmer asked that the road should pass his house, but the National Roads Board caused that road to pass in between the two houses. The Chairman of the National Roads Board is conversant with this particular case. Those two farmers, who are living along that road are now forbidden, unless they get special permission, to put up buildings along that road, because their yards are within the distance laid down in this Bill. I intend moving an amendment in this respect, and I hope the Minister will agree to accept it; my amendment will be to this effect, that where farmyards are already in existence, the farmers shall be allowed to erect buildings in those yards, in the same way as people living in towns are allowed to put up buildings. We should bear in mind the danger there is in this Bill for the farmer in this particular respect. In areas where buses run, the farmer will not be allowed to put up a small structure in which to put his cream or for his mail at cross roads. Under this Bill he will not be allowed to do so. We shall have to go into the details of this Bill very carefully, and we shall have to watch in what respects this measure is going to create hardships to the farmers. If we fail to do so, it may cause a lot of unpleasantness in days to come. Now we come to clause 10 (1) which refers to fences. I should like to know whether the fences existing within the distances laid down will be allowed to remain or whether they will have to be removed. It is further laid down that fences to be erected shall not be more than five feet in height. Why should they not be allowed to be higher than that? Those fences are not erected merely for the purpose of keeping the stock on the farm, but they are there also for the purpose of keeping evildoers off the farm. Yet if the farmer wants to put up a 6-ft. or 6½-ft. fence he is not permitted to do so. That sort of thing seems unfair to me. I have already said that I am in agreement with the principle of this Bill, because we do not want our scenic beauty to be spoiled by unsightly advertisements, but I want to say at the same time that we cannot pass this Bill in its present form, because if it is passed with all these clauses as they stand at the moment, the farmer will be the first to suffer under these various provisions, and I feel that we should be extremely careful of what we propose to do.

Mr. Speaker, I have gone through this Bill with certain individuals, and they have generally given it their blessing, but there are one or two points I would like some elucidation on from the Minister. These points concern very much some of those whom I represent. There are a certain number of people in my area outside the Municipal area and outside the Village Management Board area. In this district a considerable amount of land has been sold in small plots, averaging from a quarter to half, three-quarters and a full acre. On these plots buildings have been erected and practically all this land borders on the National Road. Now, under section 9 it states—

Now, some of these buildings I refer to have been erected 150 feet from the centre of the road, and some 200 feet, and I want to put this question to the Minister. Assuming there are three plots, A, B and C, say half an acre each in extent, A and C have buildings on them, which for the purpose of argument are 200 feet from the centre of the road. B is a vacant plot, is it compulsory for an individual who decides to build on B to have his building 300 feet from the centre of the road? That is the question which is affecting the minds of some of my constituents. Another question is this. We have, in sub-section (a) of section 9—

The provisions of this section shall not apply in cases of that kind. I should like to know what is the position of an individual who has erected a dwelling after the date mentioned, being of course ignorant of the provisions of the Bill? I should like some elucidation of that from the Minister.

I must honestly admit that I feel rather uneasy about this Bill. I realise naturally that we have scenic beauty here which should be preserved against defacement, and I also realise that certain powers have to be granted to bodies to safeguard us against the beauty of our landscape being spoilt, but to my way of thinking this Bill goes a great deal further than is really necessary. This measure refers not only to national roads, but to public and other roads as well, and it appears to me that if a road passes over a man’s farm he is now being prevented from doing anything near that road unless he first of all obtains the consent from some body or other. I want to refer to clause 6 and I want the Minister to study that clause. This particular clause says that no person shall deposit any rubbish or other refuse within 200 yards of a road. Now along the Breederivier, for instance, there are farms of six morgen in extent, and if a farmer is not allowed to deposit refuse within 200 yards of the road, then my question is what right has he to do anything at all on his own land? He loses the use of a large portion of his farm. But what is meant by rubbish and refuse? There is no definition. Farmers who grow crops do their threshing on their lands nowadays and if they bale their wheat near the road the straw and the chaff remain there. If this should happen to be within 300 yards of a road they first of all have to go to the divisional council or to some other body to obtain consent. Take the case of a wine farmer who has pruned his vineyard. He throws the vineyard sticks along the road before replanting them in the vineyard, or removing them—have all these things to be regarded as rubbish and refuse? There is no definition in the Bill of rubbish and refuse, and a clause of this kind may create difficulties. I want to ask the Minister to go into this question and to see whether some definition could not be introduced in order to make the position clear. Then there is another point which has struck me. The greatest sinner in regard to the defacement of public roads is the South African Railways and they are specially exempted from the provisions of this Bill. They allow advertisements showing people on lifebuoys, half naked women, and women wearing all sorts of clothes, and those advertisements one comes across everywhere. They are the greatest sinners of all in this respect, and I do not understand why they should be exempted. Then I should like to know from the Minister why the mining commissioner should have to be consulted in certain circumstances. Why should the mining commissioners have greater powers than anyone else in regard to certain proclamations and regulations?

The Minister has told us that this Bill aims at preserving the beauty of our country and in that respect, of course, we all welcome it, because our country’s beauty should be the pride of South Africa and its preservation should be the duty of every Afrikaner. But if we want to do so, there is one requirement which must be complied with, and that is that we should at least be reasonable. In this particular instance it is the platteland which is being mainly affected—I feel that this Bill does not affect the towns to the same extent as it does the platteland. We should also take account of the inconvenience which the farmers have had to suffer through the construction of national roads and district roads. I know of many instances where farmers who have had no other source of income have suffered great and heavy damages. Their farms are cut up in such a way that they have become practically useless to them. And now we are going further still and we are imposing reckless handicaps on the farmers. I know of one instance where without the farmer’s convenience having been consulted in any way the road has simply been cut through his lands with the result that his ground has been cut up in such a way that it has become useless to him. That is the state of affairs which has resulted in connection with the building of our national roads, and now the Minister comes here with what I would almost call a totally unconsidered Bill, under which he wants to make further incursions into the rights of people. I wish to associate myself with the objections raised by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) and also with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren), as well as with a great deal of the criticism which has been voiced by the other side of the House. A very serious handicap is definitely being imposed on people’s land. Nobody will object to the restriction of advertisements in the way it was originally intended. It is necessary that something of the kind should be done, and we would all welcome a restriction of some kind, but why should the land held by farmers be so seriously interfered with? Let me give the Minister a few instances. In areas where there are mountains and rivers one gets instances of the national road cutting along the foot of the mountain, but within 100 or 200 yards from a river. This is valuable ground and now the owners of the land are to be prevented from putting up buildings or sheds there required by them for the cultivation of their lands. Thus the ground is being made useless for the farmer, and because he is not allowed to put up any structures there he is prevented from beneficially cultivating his land. Let me give another instance. There are people who have to make a living on 200 or 300 morgen of land. The national road cuts through the land in one direction and another road cuts across the national road, with the result that the farmer is obliged to allow a cross road over his ground. Now, what is the position of those 200 or 300 morgen which are cut up into small bits so as to become useless to him? This restrictive measure of the Minister’s handicaps the farmer who is prevented from using 200 yards of ground in both directions. Is that sort of thing just and fair? Should we place the heart of a farmer’s ground under such restrictions and thus prevent him from making a living on his own land? Another point. The Minister in his introductory remarks stated that it was undesirable to have an unduly large number of gates and fences along a national road. I want to impress the seriousness of such a position on the Minister. It is impossible to go to a farmer and prevent him from erecting the necessary gates along a national road or a provincial road, gates which he may need for his farming purposes. There is another matter I wish to refer to, and this is the sort of thing which one particularly gets in the northern part of the Transvaal. There the farmers, in order to obtain cash, have started business places along the road, and that sort of thing would expand in the future in those parts of the country. What objection can there be to a farmer trying to make a living in those areas? If he has to shift his business 100 yards away from the road, who is going to know that there is a shop in those thickly wooded areas? I have particularly in mind those people who have been assisted by the Department of Lands in the “1 per cent. areas.” Those are drought affected areas, and the people living there suffer great hardships. Now the Minister comes along with a Bill like this and robs those people of their means of existence on land, which they have to try and pay for. Is there any need for restrictions of this kind being imposed on farming? The Minister has explained the history of this Bill. As I have already stated, if the original intention of this measure had been adhered to, namely the prevention of wholesale advertising along the roads, everyone would have welcomed it, but why should the other restrictive provisions have been taken up in the same Bill, and why should the Minister now set about depriving people of their liberty? The Minister tells us that this is being done at the request of the automobile associations. I feel that the people who have made representations to the Minister are not conversant with the difficulties facing our platteland people, and I strongly suspect that the individuals who are in power, and who have drafted this Bill, people such as the National Roads Board — and I am speaking witn all due respect for the ability of those people — are not sufficiently well acquainted with the inconveniences and difficulties which farmers have to contend with. We all realise that the beauty of the country should be preserved, but I am asking whether the price which we are asked to pay for it in this Bill is not going to be too high.

Every lover of South Africa will welcome this Bill and I am certain that its main principles will be accepted by the House. There are one or two points which I want to raise. I feel in one respect that the Bill does not go far enough. When one travels, for example, from Cape Town to Bellville one is struck by the fact that there is no provision for the prevention of the defacement of a suburb such as Parow. One sees there a rather large acreage covered with motor junk of all description, and it is one of the worst advertisements for the Western Province that such a thing should be perpetrated on a civilised community. That is to be seen from the railway. The definition of “road” is “any road except a railroad,” and here I want to emphasise what the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) said, that the Railways themselves are in some respects just as much sinners as private enterprise, and I think the Minister in his reply should indicate in how far the Railways will co-operate in the policy laid down in this Bill. I know that in section 18 it says that “the provisions of this Act shall bind the state and all its organs and servants.” I do not know exactly what that means, but I want to emphasise that while there are points along the national roads from which advertisements on Railway property would be visible, there are points away from a national road on which advertisement boards could be erected which would be visible from the railroad, and this is undesirable, particularly seeing that tourists from overseas like to travel in the sumptuous railway cars provided by the Minister of Railways. I should like to know from the Minister in charge of this Bill whether there will be co-operation from the Railway Administration in regard to the general policy of preventing the defacement of the natural scenery of South Africa.

I want to endorse what was said by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen). I can speak from experience which I have had as a member of the Johannesburg City Council, and I can endorse what has been said about the Railway authorities being bad sinners in regard to the erection of hoardings. I am afraid that this Bill does not go far enough in that it does not give the urban authorities control over hoardings erected by the Railway Administration. I see the Minister of Railways smile, but I could point out to him some objectionable Railway hoardings in the southern suburbs, which he happens to represent. It is laid down here in this Bill that the local authorities have no control over Government property. Now what is happening to-day? The Railway Administration acquires a right of way which may be 100 to 150 feet wide. The one side is used but on the other side, which is not actually occupied by the Railways, a hoarding is erected by the Railway Administration. That is done on the portion which is not used exclusively for Railway purposes, and in this way we have had some rather objectionable hoardings put up abutting on public roads. I want to know if the Minister is prepared to go so far in this Bill as to give the local authorities the control of Railway hoardings.

What worries me about this Bill is that it gives one the impression of having been drafted as an imitation of what exists in other thickly populated countries, and that existing conditions in this country have not been properly considered. Nobody objects to legislation which aims at safeguarding our main roads, and there is nobody who is in favour of spoiling the beauty of our roads or our landscape, but if we take South Africa as a whole, to think that it will be a defacement under the provisions of this Act if an advertisement is put up in the Karoo on the road to Beaufort West seems to be going somewhat far. To me it is a welcome change to notice an advertisement along the road because it serves to remind me that I am somewhere near civilisation, and to prevent people fifty miles outside Beaufort West, for instance, from putting up a notice that one will find an hotel fifty miles farther along seems somewhat ridiculous. That surely does not spoil the beauty of the Karoo. A provision of this kind may be useful here and there where there may be a tendency to overdo things in the immediate neighbourhood of large towns, such as Johannesburg or Cape Town, but to apply this sort of thing generally throughout the country is going too far. It may be most useful to a traveller to have a notice shewing that he is getting near an hotel and indicating to him how far he is away from such an hotel. In any case I feel that certain spots should be indicated, or laid down, where advertisements may be put up. In the Free State spots have been indicated, spots where trees have been planted, and where motor cars can stop and people can take refreshments. But I feel that the provisions of this Bill go too far. South Africa has not yet become a country where people live right on top of each other, and where everything has become so compact, as is the case overseas. I also wish to emphasise a point raised by several speakers here, that no account has been taken of the position of the farmers in relation to the construction of these national roads. If there is one sinner who is responsible for encouraging people to go in for this ribbon development it is the National Roads Board. The National Roads Board has developed a complex that everything must be in a straight line—everything has to run straight along until it gets on one’s nerves. Where the old roads used to divert a few yards, they are to be rebuilt and the road has to be straightened out. No matter how much discomfort, or inconvenience this may cause the farmers. I know of a case near Bloemfontein where the road turned off a few hundred yards, although there were no dangerous turns, yet that road has to be straightened out now, and as a result a couple of farms are to be completely ruined. I can shew the House instances near Bloemfontein where the old road is running and now the new road has to go slightly to the right simply because it has to go in a straight line. This has been done over distances of many miles, and a couple of yards are being cut off the farms over distances of several miles. Farms are being ruined by that sort of thing, because what can the farmer do with that long stroke of ground? It runs along the national road, he cannot plough that land, he cannot allow his stock to graze there because it is along the national road, so what is the farmer to do? No compensation is paid, and at the most the National Roads Board will, if it sees a man is in difficulty, put up a windmill there. Farms are being ruined and the only thing such a farmer could do was to say that the land along the national road which was useless for farming purposes would be sold as erven for the purpose of houses being erected there. So it was the National Roads Board which encouraged farmers to start this ribbon development. But now the Bill lays it down that for a hundred or two hundred yards on both sides of the road no buildings are to be erected. In many cases this sort of thing is quite impossible. Possibly if compensation were to be paid to those people they might be satisfied. It is most unfair to the farmers to say that they shall not allow any advertisement to be erected against payment being made for such advertisement—they are not even allowed to do so where there are large open spaces. There are people whose aesthetic feelings are like the feelings of a neurotic patient—they remind me of the people in Cape Town who were shocked some years ago when a small structure was erected on top of Table Mountain in connection with the cableway. I do not think it is so very serious if an occasional advertisement should be erected along the road where we have those large open spaces of ground. It may be necessary to impose certain restrictions near the large towns, where there might be some danger, but I do not feel that we should prevent this sort of thing everywhere, especially where the farmers are suffering great hardships. I also feel that it would be wrong to prevent people from putting up a small building or a shed of some kind near the Main Road, close to a town such as Bloemfontein, for instance, I do not feel that people should be prevented from having these privileges, and I cannot see the need for measures of this kind being passed in South Africa. I hope the Minister is not going to try to have this Bill passed through the Committee to-day.

No, I do not propose doing so.

When we heard the subject of national roads raised, many of us thought that it would be a very fine thing to have the national roads traversing one’s farm. But if we look at this Bill we must feel at once that we do not want the national road to come anywhere near our farms, because under these proposals the rights of the farmers are being very considerably curtailed. In my constituency, for instance, there is one part where the national road has been constructed near Rawsonville and it runs right through the vineyards of a farmer there, and not even straight across but slantwise, so that all his roads are cut aslant by the national road. This is an area where the farms have been very extensively cultivated and that particular farmer’s stables and outhouses will be on the lower side of the national road, and his vineyards on the other side of the road. That man is in an unfortunate position and henceforth he will not even be allowed to have any refuse lying within 200 yards of the main road. But there are parts where buildings erected by the people in that district are within 100 yards from the road, and it will be impossible to prevent refuse being thrown round about the buildings there in view of prevailing conditions—one does not even know what is to be defined as “refuse.” Say a man is making bricks — the Automobile Association possibly may regard brickmaking as something unsightly — is that man to be prevented from making bricks there? People are being restricted in their activities in many ways. For instance, in the fruit-growing areas people are in the habit of erecting small sheds or tents bearing an advertisement, “Fresh fruit may be obtained here,” or light refreshments may be advertised. Now they are to obtain the Minister’s permission before they will be allowed to put up advertisements of that kind on their own farms. And then we find that if the Minister decides against such a farmer, and he wants to go to appeal, the Minister may accept the appeal either in full or only partly, and he may pay the man’s expenses. But there will be many instances where those people will be obliged to go even further if they cannot get satisfaction. I have in mind an instance in the Somerset West district where a road runs over a man’s farm; that road was constructed there, the material for the road was obtained on the farm, and all the Road Board did was to tar the road, and now the Road Board has changed its intentions and is going to construct a new road right through that man’s farm. They are now busy constructing the road, and the amount of compensation offered to that man for damage done to his farm through an alteration in the roads running over his valuable land, is, I believe £75. He has sent the cheque back and has told the Road Board that he is not satisfied with that amount. But this happened eighteen months ago and he has not heard any more, and he simply has to sit and wait now. It appears to me that he will have to wait a long time, and then he will be obliged under this Bill to note an appeal. And then the Minister says “Yes, I shall meet your objections,” and then he will get compensation for part of his expenses. No, I feel that the restrictions imposed under this Bill are of such a nature that we should not agree to them, and that we should give the country an opportunity of studying this Bill more closely and we should obtain the opinion of the people so that we, as their representatives, may assist in regard to this very difficult matter. I know that some people are being very hard hit; I notice the hon. member opposite—I know what they have done to his farm. I believe he occasionally scratches the few hairs he has got left when he thinks of the manner in which his farm is being cut up. I want to ask the Minister not to be in too much of a hurry; let us have an opportunity of studying this Bill and let the public have an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the Bill. We want to obtain their views so that we, as members of Parliament, may co-operate with the country and with members of the Road Board in order to produce the best Act possible for the country and for the people.

This Bill now before the House is being generally welcomed, but I must associate myself with other members who have raised objections to the extensive powers which the Department and the National Roads Board are assuming unto themselves. I also associate myself with their objections to the extensive powers which the Minister is taking under this Bill. I feel that the Minister should have done something so that the public outside who are not familiar with the provisions of this Bill should have had the contents of this measure placed before them, for instance by means of a summary of the various proposals contained in the Bill. People do not realise what this Bill contains, and we are being asked what the object of the Bill is. As the public are in the dark as to what the intentions of this measure are, I feel that the Minister, by means of the Press or by some other means, should have notified the country of his intentions. I also feel that amendments should be introduced in committee and I hope the Minister will welcome such amendments. This Bill is being introduced from the point of view of the National Roads Board and from their point of view the measure may be a good one, but not so from the point of view of the public, from the point of view of the farmers. The people are afraid that where their farms are being cut up, they will suffer damage. We have had some experience in the Free State of the way in which the National Roads Board sets about its work, and I can say that there is great dissatisfaction among the public at the manner in which the national roads are constructed and cut across people’s farms. In my constituency there is one instance where the road passes between the farmer’s homestead and his outbuildings—which means that there is not much room left. Hon. members will realise that this means a great hindrance to that man’s farming operations. Yet the amount of compensation that is paid is so small that the cheques are being sent back in some instances. If it is inevitable to have the road going over a certain particular point, and damage is done as a result, the community should compensate the man to the extent of his actual damage, and that damage should not be assessed as low as possible, but the actual damage should be assessed on the basis of the hindrance and the curtailment of the man’s farming operations. I agree with the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) and other members who have pointed out that in the Free State there is great dissatisfaction at the compensation paid and that farmers are not being paid one quarter of the damage they suffer. The Minister stated that on approaching the large towns the road may be widened up to 300 feet. The Minister also emphasised that round about the towns one found plots of ground of five morgen, and from his point of view those farms were more of a hindrance than anything else. He expressed himself very clearly against farms like that. I want to tell the Minister that we shall never be able to get rid of those plots round about the large towns, and there are reasons why I say that. A town is a valuable market for vegetables, and there will always be people growing such vegetables on these valuable plots round about the towns. We shall never be able to have large farms of 2,000 morgen round about the larger towns. The value of the ground is about £50 per morgen there, and it is cut up into small lots so that people living there will be able to produce vegetables and commodities of that sort for the market in the town. That is the one reason. There is a further reason too, and that is that the workers in the town drawing poor wages are obliged to go outside the town to get a plot of ground for residential purposes. That type of man has to choose between a room in a slum area or a small plot outside the town where he may grow his own vegetables and keep his own cow, and where he will be able to live more cheaply. That ground becomes worth a couple of hundred pounds per morgen and we can realise that if the national road is going to be 300 feet wide and passes over plots like that it may mean that the owner of such a plot will be forced to give up a considerable portion of his land to the National Roads Board. Such a man has to be compensated for the damage he is made to suffer, and under this Bill we have no guarantee that that will be done. Our experience in the past has been that the National Roads Board does not pay out adequate compensation. Those people living on those plots may possibly have bought the land by paying for it in instalments, and now they are expected to surrender portion of that land. When the Bill is in committee we shall have to demand some guarantee in this respect. Then there is the provision that no one shall be allowed to build nearer than 150 feet off the road, except, of course, the people in the towns. This is going to cause a lot of trouble to the plot owners. It will be argued that the Minister may grant permission. But if the Minister should refuse to give permission the result may be that the man will be in this position that he may be obliged to go and build in a corner of his plot. This sort of thing is impossible, and it is not fair to that class of man. In committee we shall have to pass an amendment safeguarding the position of those people, and if that is not done I for one cannot vote for this Bill. I welcome this Bill because I agree that the National Roads Board must have a certain amount of protection, but if we interfere with the vested rights of people, we must be prepared to pay them proper compensation and we must see to it that that type of person is properly protected.

I should have liked this Bill to have been referred to a select committee, but I realise at the same time that it is essential for this important measure to be passed by the House as soon as possible, and that being so, we shall have to keep our eyes wide open when the Bill is before the Committee of the whole House. The three main principles of this Bill are essential. The first principle concerns our aesthetic feelings, the second concerns the practical position which has to be maintained, and the third principle concerns the general steps which have to be taken on behalf of the travelling public, the public travelling by motor or otherwise, and the steps which have to be taken on behalf of the pedestrians. There are a few matters which have attracted my attention, and which should have the Minister’s consideration, and also the consideration of everyone taking an interest in this matter. I notice from the definitions that the provisions regarding advertisements do not relate to advertisements in municipalities, or municipal areas. I realise that there are difficulties in that respect, but the people who use vehicles in the towns are the people who have practical experience and know that when they approach a robot there are often numerous advertising lights close to the traffic lights, and those lights will often have most confusing effects, so far as motorists are concerned. All these matters should be considered with a view to the safety of our traffic, and the protection of the public. I notice that according to the Bill an advertisement shall only relate to a visible display of a word, etc. Consequently, there may also be an invisible display. This can only mean that a person will be allowed to shout out his advertisement along the road. An individual may take a loudspeaker and stand at a certain place, and announce his advertisements through the loudspeaker. I am pointing out these details as they appear in the Bill because this Bill is a very drastic one. At the same time I admit that the Bill is a necessary one for the simple reason that if we take certain action now and we want to take other action in five or ten years’ time, it will take a lot of money to get things right then. For that reason we must try and put things on a proper footing now. I take it that the Minister will not be prepared to send this Bill to a select committee, but in view of the fact that we are all in agreement with the main principles of this measure. I shall try, and all of us must try in Committee, to safeguard the owners of land, the public and the travelling public, as far as we possibly can under the provisions of this measure.

I only wish to say a few words in regard to this most important Bill and the condition of affairs which it deals with. I feel that the Minister is thoroughly aware of the great anomalies caused by the construction of the national roads in certain parts of the country.

As some hon. members have correctly shewn, valuable ground has in many instances been taken up by the building of the national road. If we look at the excavations necessary wherever the national road is built, and the tremendous amount of foundation work that has to be done, we can quite appreciate the great inconvenience that must be caused to the public of surrounding farms. And not only that, but I know of numerous instances where the national road is built along the contour of the farm, so that certain nieces of land, of valuable land, are cut off owing to the fact that the road passes over such land, with the result that the land is being interfered with to such an extent that it is being made almost valueless. The crossings of farm roads and other roads are being made very inconvenient, and I do feel that, generally speaking, too little attention is paid to the convenience and the privileges to which people are entitled on whose farms the national road is being built. They do not receive any attention or consideration in respect of the passage and the crossing of roads by and over the national road— they do not get the attention and consideration to which they are entitled. And not only that. Camps are also being cut up from the one side of the farm to the other. It will be realised that this is an important matter so far as the owner of the farm is concerned. The compensation that is paid in connection with a road, and for the damage done to the farm, is so small that I want to associate myself with hon. members who have already stated in connection with this matter that it is not worth while. What I fail to understand is that notwithstanding the fact that people worth while. What I fail to understand is have to suffer these discomforts in the general public interest, in the interest of the travelling public, the people over whose farms the national roads are built are not being paid proper compensation. I fail to understand why one section of the population who are unfortunate enough to have the road passing over their farm so that they have to bear all the discomfort and inconvenience, should be penalised for the sake of the travelling public as a whole. And to that must be added the fact that we are faced, to my mind, with conditions which in many respects can be improved upon, and which are, therefore, all the more undesirable because other means can very often be taken to render greater comforts and conveniences to the people who now have to undergo great hardships and inconveniences. And on top of all, we now get this Bill which provides for a still more serious interference with vested rights. I really feel that if we take a man’s property, property which he has bought at a great price, property which is often heavily burdened, and on which he often has a very heavy bond, and if we interfere in this manner with his rights of ownership, it appears to me like domination, to take up the attitude which this Bill does in regard to the rights of that man. If the necessary discretion is exercised in doing this and the needs and the requirements of the country are taken into consideration, I admit that we must not curtail the development of the country, but when it comes to interfering with the ownership rights of people by constructing roads over a man’s farm, there the Minister should shew every possible consideration, especially in regard to the construction of buildings, etc., along the road. I know of instances where the construction of buildings had already been started. The foundations had been put down before the people knew that the Bill had been published, and I am afraid there will be many conflicts and clashes when the law is put into force, because the buildings were put up — important buildings at that — after the publication of the Bill. I want to ask the Minister in all modesty when matters of this kind come to his notice, to show the necessary consideration.

This discussion this afternoon has served a very useful purpose inasmuch as it has enabled a number of members representing rural constituencies to put forward the potential difficulties which they fear in the Bill. It has served a good purpose because they have put forward these difficulties and I think it gives one an opportunity to reassure them and through them to reassure their constituents who may be affected by this Bill. I think a great many of the possible dangers and difficulties inherent in the provisions of this Bill are grossly exaggerated. I think members, through perhaps an over-zealous sense of responsibility for their constituents, are seeing dangers where no dangers actually exist. As far as I gather the sense of the House, it would appear that members approve of two of the principles of the Bill, namely, the control of the exhibition of advertisements near public roads and the control of ribbon developments. It seems that some members merely take objection to certain provisions which they fear may affect the rights and freedom of farmers and of land owners adjacent to national roads and building restriction roads. I can assure the House that all these points have been very carefully considered, not merely by the National Roads Board, which has representatives on it who know the country districts well, but these matters have also been considered by local authorities, divisional councils and other competent bodies who deal with these matters, and this Bill, while it has a number of peremptory provisions, is flexible inasmuch as powers are given to the local authority to exempt and to the Minister by way of appeal to deal with hard cases. If hon. members will refer to section 2, subsection (3) of the Bill, they will notice that power is also given to the Governor-General to make regulations to deal with matters which may crop up in future. It is quite impossible for instance when considering advertisements to forecast in advance all the possible advertisements which one might like to exclude from section 2. In other words, it is quite impossible to consider beforehand the type of advertisement which one would allow a person to put up without the prior consent of the controlling authority. The oroad types of exempted advertisements are given in the proviso to section 2, but realising that there may be other similar advertisements which we do not want to include in the control provision, there is this provision in section 2 (3) which enables the Governor-General to define by proclamation any class of advertisement not mentioned. This afternoon some hon. members referred to apparently innocent advertisements which night be elected. They said that under provisions of the Bill consent will be necessary for the erection of such advertisements and that that will cause a great deal of trouble. It is quite possible that in the course of the experience of this Bill proclamations will be published by the Governor-General extending the exemption under the proviso class, but in any event the controlling authority is there to give permission, and the controlling authority, I assume, is not going to take up an unreasonable attitude in these matters. The Question of farm stalls has been raised. They are clearly exempt from the advertisement provisions. There is nothing to prevent a farmer having a farm stall along a national road and putting up an advertisement. He may do so without permission in terms of the Bill. The primary object of the advertisement provisions is to prevent the erection of unsightly notices, of advertisements, either pictorial advertisements, or in the form of stone, or otherwise, which may detract from the beauties of the countryside, and from the pleasant approach of the larger towns. That is the type of advertisement which the Bill aims at, that is the evil which the Bill seeks to obviate, and I can assure members that their fears in regard to this Bill being a pinpricking measure are quite unjustified and unnecessary. But I repeat that this discussion has served a useful purpose in bringing these points to light. I nad intended asking the House to proceed immediately with the committee stage, but in view of the matters which have been discussed and in view of the fact that I see it is obvious that members wish to raise amendments, I do not propose to do so this afternoon. In view of the fact that I am not going to ask the House to take the committee stage now, it will not be necessary for me to deal in detail with the various points raised. Those points can be more properly dealt with in committee, and I shall merely at this stage refer to a few of the matters which have been raised and leave the bulk to the committee stage. May I just say in regard to the translation of ribbon development to which some members have referred that I am advised that according to Van Dalen the translation of ribbon development is “lint-bebouing”, but that apparently the Afrikaans Press prefers “streep-bebouing”. I am prepared to go into this with my advisers. I cannot set myself up as an expert Afrikaans linguist, and I must be guided by my technical advisers. I obviously would wish that the Afrikaans translation should be as accurate as possible and in manner and form would appeal to members opposite and members on this side of the House who are Afrikaans-speaking. In regard to the fear that houses built some time ago may be affected by this Act, I would remind members that any structure erected prior to the 10th May, 1939, will not be affected, and any structure erected after that time, if it was erected next to a road which at the time was not a national road, or not a building restricted road, will not be affected either. It is only if it was built next to a national road or building restriction road since the 10th May, 1939, that the provisions of the Act come into operation. Other matters raised can best be dealt with in committee.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 27th March.

I move—

The Bill which I am now bringing to the notice of the House is a relatively simple measure although perhaps in reading it, it reads as if it were somewhat complicated. The reason is that it is amending three separate Acts. It is amending the Railways and Harbours Service Act of 1912, the Railways and Harbours Service Act of 1925, and the Railways and Harbours Superannuation Act of 1925. And consequently the same amendment has to be repeated through the course of the Bill no less than three times and, as I say, that makes the Bill itself appear somewhat complicated. We are taking the opportunity at the same time of correcting one or two matters in connection with other Bills which have led to some confusion in the administration of our Pension Fund, and in the payment of gratuities. More especially we are correcting a fault in the amending Act of 1938, Act 18 of 1938, which through a piece of faulty draughtsmanship is apparently depriving our pensioners of certain leave rights. These pensioners have not suffered this deprivation because we have adhered to the original Act, but the Controller and Auditor-General points out that this is invalid, and consequently we are taking the opportunity in this Bill of dealing with that particular point. I have taken the opportunity of discussing this Bill with the different groups interested in these matters, and I understand there will be no difficulty in our getting the Bill through without undue delay. I think it will perhaps simplify matters if I explain to the House the main purpose of the Bill. There are four or five main purposes, and three or four subsidiary purposes which the Bill is intended to cover.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as to the provisions of this amending Bill, the first purpose we want to achieve is to increase the gratuities which we pay to servants who are retired, for any reason, before they reach their pensionable age. In the 1925 Act it was arranged that pensions would be paid on the basis of contributions fixed on a 30-day basis, and pensions would be paid on the same basis. In the 1912 Act these pensions were contributed to and paid on a 26-day basis. In order to improve the position of the railway worker it was agreed in 1925 to base the contributions on a 30-day basis, and to pay the pensions on that basis. The gratuities, however, owing to the fact that they are not paid out of the pensions fund, but out of Railway revenue, were not changed. Consequently we have had the inequitable condition of taking contributions from Railway servants on a 30-day basis and paying the gratuities on a 26-day basis. It is proposed to alter this so as to bring the gratuities on to the higher scale. This is done by changing the word “emoluments” in the definition of pensionable emoluments to the word “amount,” and it will read—

In the present Act it means emoluments on which the contributions are paid. The second purpose is this. When a workman is retired owing to ill-health in the Railway service his gratuity depends, or rather the amount of his gratuity depends, upon whether that ill-health is caused by his own default or other causes. At the present time the onus of proof as to whether it is his own default rests with the beneficiary and not with the administration. The result of that is that where there is a doubtful case, where the doctor is in doubt whether it is the man’s own default or not, he is unable to give a clear certificate, and the beneficiary suffers in consequence, and the Railway Administration gets the benefit of the doubt. We are now reversing that. We propose to put upon the Railway Administration, or upon the Sick Fund Board, the onus of proving whether a beneficiary has been retired on account of illness resulting from his own default or otherwise. This means that, in any doubtful case, where no clear certificate can be given, the beneficiary will get the benefit of that doubt. As a matter of fact, in actual practice, the Railways have always dealt with these cases on a general basis, but, strictly speaking, they have been more generous than probably they should have been under the Act. If the amendment is agreed to the beneficiary will be better off. The next provision is to bring Railway workers who are stationed in South-West Africa, under the workmen’s compensation laws of South Africa. We have the position to-day that we have Railway workers working in the Union who have certain rights under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, but our servants working in South-West Africa come under the common law of South-West Africa, and, in the event of accidents, they are not treated on anything like so generous a scale as under our own laws. The administration now proposes to take them out of the common law of South-West Africa and deal with them under the Union’s Workmen’s Compensation Act. In effect this means that workers employed in South-West Africa will be treated, in the event of an accident, much more generously than they have been up to now. The fourth point is this, that where a beneficiary, for reasons of mental instability, is unable to look after his own affairs, the General Manager of Railways is being empowered under this Bill, on a certificate from two medical officers, to pay anything due to that beneficiary to the next of kin, in accordance with our Pensions Act. At the present time no provision is made for this. If a curator is appointed the situation is simple., but in nine cases out of ten curators are not appointed, and we have hard cases, where money is due to a beneficiary, but owing to his mental state we are unable to pay it. Therefore, we propose to give the General Manager authority against a certificate, by two doctors, to pay to his next-of-kin dues in the ordinary way, either by way of pension, or salary or anything else due to this particular beneficiary. That will do away with very many hard cases. That, I think, covers the main purposes of the Bill. There are one or two smaller matters we wish to make provision for. One of these is that in passing the amending Act of 19.38, Act No. 18 of 1938, amending our Services Act of 1925, owing to faulty draftsmanship it appears that we deprived our pensioners of certain leave rights on retirement. In fact, instead of paying them for six months, they were getting from four to five months, and in this Act we reinstate the position and bring it to what it was before the 1938 Act was passed. We are also taking powers here to validate changes in service conditions which for any reason have been rendered invalid owing either to some technical breach of the law, or in some cases owing to the fact that the Governor-General has not signed the necessary papers within three months of their being put into effect. The particular case which brought this to a head was when one of my predecessors made a wage award retrospective, or rather when he merged a responsibility allowance into an award, and for pension purposes he made it retrospective, with the result that that act alone rendered it invalid. Now we propose to validate that. Suppose we have a conference at which we agreed to an amendment of wages, which is to date from the beginning of the conference. That is invalid unless it is validated under this general provision now. Also, we have had occasions when the Governor-General has not signed an Act within the three months prescribed, and that, from the point of view of the Controller and Auditor-General, renders a change invalid. We also take the opportunity in this Act of laying down conditions under which we can re-employ pensioners. At the present time there is no provision in our Acts for the re-employment of pensioners. We rarely reemploy them, but on occasions we do for special work. When they are re-employed, nobody seems to know how to treat them. In the case of casuals they, we know, are not entitled to contribute to the fund, or start contributions again, and we are laying it down quite clearly that they are not so entitled. In the case of pensioners taken on as temporary employees, they have to start contributing to the fund again, and the basis upon which they will contribute and what rights they get as the result of contributing to that fund again, are laid down in this amending Bill. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, in the case of our servants who come under the old Cape and Natal Act, we are proposing to improve their conditions in so far as gratuities are concerned. If they die before reaching pensionable age, servants, coming under the old Cape Act, receive their contributions back, at least the dependents of such servants do, and nothing more. In the case of the Natal Act, they receive their contributions back, plus 4 per cent. interest. We are now proposing to do away with that and bring all the servants in under the new superannuation rule which means that instead of getting these contributions they will get double contributions back.

Does that apply to casual labourers as well?

No, this only deals with pensioners coming under the Superannuation Fund, the casual labourer is dealt with under another Act, No. 8 of 1938. I think it is. That we are not touching at this stage. These servants I am speaking about will now get double their contributions back on the same basis as all other railway employees do. I think I have covered the whole ground of these amendments and if there is any point, any detail not dealt with, I daresay that can be dealt with when we reach the committee stage.

This amending Bill which the Minister of Railways has introduced, will be heartily welcomed by the railway staff. It means nothing but an improvement of pension privileges, and the amendments are in the interest of the railway staff. I also want to congratulate the Minister on the manner in which he introduced this amending Bill. He has followed the exceptional course of giving a clear explanation of each clause in a memorandum. It would be most useful and helpful to members if other Ministers should follow his example. An amending Bill of this kind is very complicated and unless we study the original Act and the regulations we are often unable to understand a Bill like this. The Minister’s officials study such a Bill and we are glad to notice that the Minister has made use of their services for the purpose of supplying the necessary information on the various clauses in the memorandum. This saves us a lot of time and we are grateful to the Minister for what he has done. I hope the Minister’s colleagues will in future follow his example. This Bill will be of benefit to the staff. It may be that in committee certain amendments will be introduced, but beyond that we shall support the Bill. I wish, however, to draw the Minister’s attention to an injustice that prevails in the railway service, and if it should require an amendment of the law to put matters right, we should consider whether such an amendment cannot be introduced in committee. A man becomes ill and is unable to carry on his work. He is paid off and gets a pension. If his illness or incapacity is due to the Administration’s neglect, he should be entitled to have better provision made for him than is the case at present. I have an instance in my constituency where a man had to stand in a damp place, and he had to work between the platform and the carriages, with the result that his back rubbed up against the cement. In consequence he developed kidney disease; he has been paid off and he is only getting a small pension which he finds it impossible to come out on. If such an individual has complained to the Administration, and the Administration has failed to take any notice of his complaint, provision should be made for him not only for a pension, but also for compensation for the incapacity which he has suffered. I can quite understand that when a man has met with an accident and that accident is due to his own neglect, he can only claim the ordinary compensation, but when the Railway Administration has been negligent and complaints have been made by the person concerned that he is working under conditions affecting his health, such a person should not receive a pension only; the Administration should take power to itself to enable it in such cases to pay additional compensation. That to my mind is no more than just. As I have said we support this Bill. I personally am very glad that it has been introduced, but we should be grateful if in committee the Minister would be prepared to accept amendments here and there.

I would like to congratulate the Minister on the introduction of inis Bill. I feel certain it will be welcomed by ail railwaymen throughout the Union. It is a very fine Bill indeed, although it does not go so far as most of us would like it to go. It is more or less a consolidation Bill and confers considerable benefit upon our railwaymen, and I am very pleased indeed that the Minister has seen fit to introduce it. I hope it will pass both stages to-night, because the railwaymen are looking forward to the passage of this Bill, and there are people who will suffer if it is not given effect to at the earliest possible moment. I would like, however, to appeal to the Minister to make certain provisions retrospective. I refer to clause 15. I have a case in my constituency of a railwayman who retired in the early part of this year. Upon going into retirement he could have commuted one-third of his pension, which would have amounted approximately to £831, and that would still leave him with a pension of £178 per annum. Unfortunately this gentleman passed away and his wife only received his bare contributions plus four per cent. That is why I am so anxious this Bill should pass this evening in case similar instances happen to crop up before it can be given effect to. If this Bill had been effective when this man died, his widow, instead of receiving a matter of four hundred pounds odd, would have received almost nine hundred, because this Act maxes provision for double contributions. This is what I call a borderine case, a matter only of weeks. I know the danger of making Acts retrospective, but it should be possible to do something in regard to this particular individual. I hope the Minister will be able to meet this case. I don’t suppose there are very many like it, and I would appeal to the Minister to make the Bill retrospective for a period of six months to enable this particular widow to come within its scope so as to get the benefit she would have had, had the Bill been operative a matter of weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. minister originally gave notice of his intention to introduce this Bill, I, and many others, expected that it would contain provisions to improve the lot of those railway servants who are retired prematurely owing to ill-health. I thought the Bill would contain many of those long-overdue reforms in regard to the position of those servants prematurely retired. The hon. member who has just spoken said that the Bill confers considerable benefits on railwaymen. I have very carefully gone through it, sir, and the only benefits that I can see are more in the nature of theoretical benefits. The Bill is more in the nature of an indemnity for the Administration in regard to practices which they nave pursued in the past, and I can find very little actual benefit in the Bill. However, as it legalises the position the Administration has taken up in the past in regard to certain aspects of pension matters, one can do nothing else but accept it. But there are so many reforms that should be effected in regard to this particular matter that one would have expected the Minister to introduce a comprehensive Bill which would have contained provisions to improve the lot of those servants retired prematurely owing to ill-health. We find that sections 1, 4, 5 and 10 merely legalise the method the Administration has adopted in the past in regard to the calculation of contributions and the calculation and payment of gratuities and pensions. Clauses 2, 3, 11 and 13 place the onus on the Medical Board of proving that the prematurely retired servant has occasioned his ill-health by his own default. It is not such an exceptional benefit to the staff. There was in three years, 1937, 1938 and 1939, only one case where it was found that the servant’s ill-health was occasioned by his own default. So this is not a very considerable benefit, though it will assist the men in their medical examination. It is, in fact, more in the nature of a theoretical than an actual benefit. Section 6 is merely to obtain clarity in regard to payment in lieu of leave. Section 7 brings South-West African servants into line with Union servants in regard to the application of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and section 8 validates certain changes in conditions of employment made by the Administration. Sections 9 and 14 provide for the payment of monies, pensions, etc., to some other person on behalf of the dependents of the servant to whom the money is due when that servant owing to his mental condition is unable to manage his own affairs. Section 12 regulates the contributions and payment of annuities to pensioners re-employed in a casual capacity and the last section is to bring members of the old pension funds into line with the provisions of the Superannuation Act of 1925. But I do not think there is any urgency about this Bill. No section of the staff will suffer any serious disability if the Bill is delayed for another month or so. And as there are so many other matters which should be dealt with, I want to move that the order for the second reading of the Bill be discharged and that the Bill be referred to a select committee, the select committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and the committee to have the power to bring in an amended Bill. My object in doing this is to enable the select committee to hear evidence in regard to the disabilities which pensioners suffer from and to give the Minister an opportunity of bringing in a more comprehensive Bill which will improve their conditions and which will assist those servants who are retired on the grounds of permanent ill-health. I want to suggest a few of the matters which require investigation and in respect of which improvements should be made. To put hon. members in a position of being able to follow and of appreciating what I am going to say, I shall put it in the nature of an illustration. The suggestions I want to make are first of all in regard to those servants retired on the grounds of permanent ill-health before they reach the normal retiring age. There are two aspects, firstly in regard to the commutation value of their persons, and secondly in regard to years to be added to their service. I shall now deal with the first matter, that is in regard to the commutation value. I shall first of all give the position of the servant who is retired normally at the age of sixty, and in the case of telegraphists, drivers and firemen, at the age of fifty-five. When a servant reaches the normal retiring age he has the opportunity of stating whether he wants to commute one-third of his pension. He is not subject to any medical examination. If he decides to commute one-third, the commutation value of his pension is actually calculated on the basis of a ten years expectation of life. He then receives what is known as the full commutation value of one-third of his pension. For example if he is supposed to receive a pension of £250 per annum, that is about £22 per month, and he decides to commute one-third he will receive an approximate cash payment of £1,000 and in addition he will receive £14 per month. So that of the £22 per month he loses approximately one-third, and in lieu of the amount he loses he receives a cash payment of £1,000. That is in the case of a servant who would receive a full pension of £250 per year. But now let us take the case of the servant who is retired on the grounds of permanent ill-health. If he is retired at the age of fifty-eight years and eleven months, he has to submit himself to a medical examination. Invariably the Medical Board estimates his expectation of life at a considerably less period than ten years. As I have stated, ten years is the basis on which the actuarial valuation is made in the case of a servant who is retired normally at the age of 55 years or 60 years. The result is this: If a man whose pension amounts to £250 per annum is retired on the grounds of permanent ill-health at the age of fifty-eight years and eleven months, and his expectation of life is assessed at three years, he will instead of receiving £1,000 as the commutation value of his pension, receive only approximately £300. At the same time be will still be compelled to lose one-third of his monthly pension. He will only receive about £14 per month, and through being examined by the Medical Board and having his life assessed at three years, he will receive almost £600 less than the person who would retire at the normal retiring age. This section of the Act should be amended. The person who is retired on the grounds of permanent ill-health, should receive precisely the same treatment in regard to the commutation value of his pension as the person who is retired at the normal retiring age. You find usually that such ill-health is occasioned by the nature of the duties which the man was called upon to perform. The work he had to do was directly responsible for his loss of health. It is very difficult, of course, to prove that the loss of health was entirely due to the nature of the work. These diseases are not listed as occupational diseases; the man is not bodily injured, but at the same time it is found that in a very large number of cases the ill-health of the servant is actually occasioned by the nature of the work he has been called upon to perform. There is a second improvement that should be effected in regard to the treatment of these servants. We find that in Section 11 (f) of Act 23 of 1925, it is provided that when a servant is retired on the grounds of re-organisation, or abolition of office, un to a maximum of five years can be added to his pensionable service for the purpose of bringing his retiring age up to sixty, so as to allow him his full pension benefits. This should also apply to servants retired on the grounds of permanent ill-health. It will not involve the superannuation fund as their pensions are paid out of revenue until they reach the normal retiring age, neither will it involve the Administration in a considerable outlay. The Minister informed me in reply to a question I put to him that in 1936/’37 of the 198 servants who were retired on the grounds of permanent ill-health, only forty-one were over fifty-five years of age. In 1937/’38 forty-three so retired were over 55 years of age, and in 1938/’39 fifty-four were 55 years and over. Of the servants whose normal retiring age is fifty-five, none were retired in 1936/’37, who were over fifty. In the next year two men of over fifty were retired, and in 1938/’39 five over fifty were retired. So it shews that comparatively few employees who are retired on the grounds of permanent ill-health are within five years of the age limit. If the Superannuation Act were amended to allow additional years up to a maximum of five to be added to the pensionable service of servants who are retired on the grounds of permanent ill-health, it would be of considerable assistance to these men whose loss of health is due to no fault of their own. They would then be in precisely the same position as those employees who are retired on the grounds of reorganisation or abolition of office before they reach the age limit. These are matters which should be investigated by that select committee. The committee would call evidence, and I venture to state that they would get considerable evidence on the hardships suffered by these people. If one looks at the report of the Select Committee on Pensions, one finds that large numbers of cases are annually submitted to this House by persons prematurely retired because of ill-health. The position of these servants is very tragic. I want to give an instance of what actually happened in one case. A servant who for many years had been an engine driver eventually became a running shed foreman. That is a salaried position carrying a higher wage. The normal retiring age of a driver is 55 years, but as running shed foreman this servant would have worked until he was sixty years of age. He would then have received a higher pension and consequently the commutation value of his pension would also have been higher. This servant was, however, retired at the age of 58 years on the grounds of ill-health. If he had been retired at fifty-five as a driver, he would have received £900 as the commutation value of his pension. But after holding a higher position for three years to which a higher salary was attached, on being retired on the grounds of permanent ill-health at the age of 58 years, he was offered not £900, but only £300 as the commutation value of the pension. This particular man suffered from a strained heart, and although the Medical Board found that the nature of the work which he had been called upon to perform might have been a contributory cause, they could not say that his loss of health was entirely due to his work. This servant was very conscientious. During the three years prior to his retirement, he had to work under the most unpleasant conditions. At the depot at which he was stationed there was a considerable shortage of men and locomotives. As he was responsible for the running of the trains, it resulted in continuous worry, which eventually strained his heart. After having several heart attacks he was retired. After giving the best part of his life to the service of the Administration, this conscientious worker with a clean record, who had for 35 years done his best to serve the interests of the administration, when the time came that he suffered from ill-health entirely due to the nature of the work he had been called upon to perform, was thrown aside with a mere pittance. I have another case; the man was a truck examiner. While performing his duties he was continually compelled to creep under the carriages, and often be had to creep under the outlet pipes of the lavatories. These pipes have a continuous drip, which eventually gave him an incurable skin disease. After a few years it became so bad that he had to be permanently retired. He was medically examined, and his expectation of life was estimated at about three years. He also was put off with a pittance. These cases happen daily. There are so many diseases which Railwaymen suffer from, largely and solely due to the nature of the work they are called upon to perform, that it is essential that these men should be put on such a basis that at least they will be able to live when they are retired on the grounds of permanent ill-health. We know that when they are retired from the Railway service there is not the slightest Possibility that they will ever be able to obtain employment from a private emolover. Once a man is retired on the grounds of permanent ill-health he has to live on the pension he receives, and very often it is only with the greatest difficulty that he is able to live on that pension. In other respects the administration is sometimes very generous. We had the case recently of a high senior official who was retired, and illegally at that time he received considerable additions to his pension. But when it comes to, these servants who have given the best years of their lives to the service of the administration, and who lose their health through no fault of their own, they receive no consideration whatsoever. Let us take the position of an engine-driver. An engine-driver works ten, twelve or fourteen hours a day. He works day and night, from Sunday to Monday. With these irregular hours it means that he is not in a position to take his meals at proper intervals. The result is that he eventually suffers from stomach trouble, and in the end he is sometimes compelled to retire on the grounds of permanent ill-health. But he will not receive the same generous treatment as the senior official who leaves the service of the administration before his normal retiring age for the purpose of taking up another lucrative appointment. I trust that the Minister will accept the amendment. If he cannot accept the amendment I trust that he will still endeavour to bring in a comprehensive Bill before the end of this session to meet the cases of these men. The two points are, I repeat them, firstly that a servant who is retired on the grounds of permanent ill-health, the commutation value of his pension should be calculated on the same basis as that of a servant who is retired at the normal retiring age. Secondly, that a man who is retired on the grounds of permanent ill-health who is over 50 years of age if a telegraphist or driver, and over 55 years of age in all other cases, should have additional years up to a maximum of five added to his service for pensionable purposes. There is one other matter that should be gone into by the select committee. It is a matter that affects large numbers of the staff. In section 16 of Act 23 of 1925 there is a provision that when a servant has been before a court on a criminal charge and acquitted, if no disciplinary steps are taken by the administration, the head of the department, at his discretion, can decide whether or not this servant should receive payment for the period he was under suspension. The usual procedure is that directly a servant receives notification that he is accused of a criminal offence he is immediately suspended and he remains suspended until all charges against him have been dealt with. If acquitted on a criminal charge and no disciplinary steps are taken, the head of the department decides, in his discretion, whether that servant should receive pay for the period he was under suspension, or whether he should receive half-pay or whether the period of suspension should be regarded as leave without pay. This decision rests entirely with the head of the department. To give an illustration. A certain ticket examiner was charged with theft. From the date he actually received notification of the charge until he was finally acquitted by the court, a period of three months had elapsed. During that time he was suspended. The court acquitted him of the criminal charge. After that no steps were taken by the administration under the disciplinary regulations, but in spite of that fact the head of the department decided he should not receive any pay for the time he was under suspension — no pay at all. The union of which he was a member made representations on his behalf and eventually the head of the department decided to allow him half-pay. We therefore have the position that this servant who was found not guilty by the court of a criminal charge, and against whom the administration took no steps under the disciplinary regulations, was still compelled to lose 1½ months wages. In spite of the fact that he was proved innocent they still decided to punish him by withholding half of his pay for three months. That matter should be remedied. We have dozens of these cases every year where servants of the administration are criminally charged, and in many cases they are acquitted, but in spite of the fact that they are found innocent and the administration taking no steps under the disciplinary regulations, these men are still punished by the withholding of their wages for the period they were under suspension. In the interests of justice this matter should be remedied. In conclusion, I trust that these few points I have raised, which are burning questions with large numbers of the staff, will be gone into very carefully by the Minister with a view to alleviating the position of those servants who are retired on the grounds of permanent ill-health, and those who are acquitted on a criminal charge but whose wages are withheld for the period they were under suspension. I move—

I want to second the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). In doing so I should like to ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether this Bill is the result of a detailed investigation of the pension laws of the Railways. If so, obviously the matters raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg have either not received consideration, or if they have received consideration, they have not received that sympathetic consideration which this side of the House feels they should have received. The procedure suggested by the hon. member for Fordsburg would enable the various associations of employees in the Railways to make representations in regard to their pension position. It would seem that the system adopted by the Minister here is, not to put it too unkindly, rather in the nature of a half-baked measure. It is o_uestionable whether the House should put through a measure of that description when, by following the suggestion of the hon. member for Fordsburg, the question of a month’s delay would take place, but in the end you would have the same result. The Minister has not claimed for this Bill that it confers great benefits on the railwaymen, as it does not. The hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) suggested that it did. The hon. member is almost slavish in his adulation, but it appears there was a method in his madness, because he wanted a certain concession from the Minister. A closer inspection of the Bill reveals as regards the first amendment, the question of gratuities where workmen are put on an equitable basis; according to the Minister’s own statement he is merely giving the workmen their rights, which they have not enjoyed in the past, and rights that they pay for. As regards the question of their default, the hon. member for Fordsburg has pointed out that there may be one of two cases, but it is not of general application. Section 7 of this Bill causes me a little concern. I think the Minister claimed that it conferred a benefit on the employees in South-West Africa. Well, if I have got to jog the Minister’s memory, and if I have read Clause 7 correctly, what he here proposes to do is to bring the position of the South-West Africa servants into line with the Union servants. As regards ordinary compensation, I will agree that our Workmen’s Compensation Act confers greater benefits than the ordinances in South-West Africa do. But, Mr. Speaker, you may remember with the introduction of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the rights of workmen who were not killed and workmen’s dependents were taken away under common law, and the Workmen’s Compensation Act proposed, and it was the intention of the House to confer, certain additional benefits on the workman or his dependents where there was a case of negligence. But what have we found in actual fact? We have found that Section 5 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act applies, and this House being remiss, allowed this section to go through. The section is—

In fact, the position is that although a workman may be killed as the result of the negligence of a fellow-workman, a shunter, a guard, or a driver, under the ordinary common law in South-West Africa at present, the workman’s widow may sue for £3,000 or £4,000, but in actual fact if this Act applies to South-West Africa, she will not get additional benefits, but the ordinary benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, where there is any negligence, because of the wording of this section, because “employer” means the Minister or the system manager. In actual practice neither the Minister nor the system manager has any personal knowledge of the causes of the accident or is himself responsible for the accident. The result is that this Section 5 is a dead letter, and the workman has been deprived of ordinary common law rights. I agree that it was never the intention of this House to impose that hardship upon the workman, and we were promised by the previous Government that some reforms would be made in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, in order to remove that blot on the statute book. Now the Minister proposes—he has probably overlooked the real position—he proposes to put the unfortunate South-West African servant in exactly the same position. I for one would like the Minister to consider whether, as regards the question of increased compensation where negligence has taken place, whether he will not still allow the workman to retain his rights under the common law. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Schoeman) suggested that the Select Committee might consider the lot of the servant prematurely retired owing to ill-health, and he made out a very good case for that because, after all, is not the position of a man who has had long service and who through no fault of his own is retired prematurely for ill-health considerably worse than the man who normally reaches the pensionable age. It may be that his health is so bad that he is permanently incapacitated to carry on his job and ninety-nine times out of hundred he is incapable of doing any work in civil life. The result is that he cannot earn anything, whereas the ordinary pensioner, if he is fortunate, can get employment to supplement his income and keep his home going. The man who is permanently incapacitated is in considerably worse condition. Should not the Select Committee also consider the case of widows of pensioners on the Railway. Excent in certain cases where the men have contributed to a widows’ fund these women are invariably left destitute on the death of the husband and the Administration does nothing for them after that. It may be that the Minister can introduce something without costing the Administration a terrible lot of money. While the husbands are alive they are entitled to a free pass over all the systems once a year, but after the death of the husband that privilege is taken away. Perhaps it is necessary to get statutory power to retain that privilege for the widows of men who have had long and honourable service with the Administration. It may be that in cases of real hardship the Minister might give certain benefits to these women and so avoid their having to come to this House with petitions and throw themselves on the mercy of the State. It seems to me that the motion of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Schoeman) was a very reasonable one in view of the fact that certain important matters have been overlooked and in view of the fact that the delay occasioned would only be of short duration. No one would be put in any worse position if the Bill were not put through within the course of the next week or ten days.

I hope the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) because I feel that a case has been made out for some little delay and an investigation by a Select Committee. I don’t think the Minister claims that this Bill is the result of an exhaustive investigation into the whole pension system, but what is clear to those of us who interest ourselves in this matter is that some kind of immediate investigation into some of the anomalies existing in the pensions system should be carried out. The hon. member has quoted one or two instances which are matters of great importance and are causing a considerable amount of unrest among the railwaymen. I want to quote another one with reference to the servants in the Railway Administration who still fall under the old Natal Act of 1897. This Act was amended in 1902 and unfortunately it appears to me that the draughtsman made an error. Either he was trying to be too explicit, or he suggested something in the particular paragraph which I am quite sure could not possibly have been the wish of the legislature. It reads that a servant’s pension shall be calculated over the last five years preceding the year of his retirement. Now that has been read by the Railway Administration — as far as I know the matter has never so far been contested in Court — it has been read by the Administration to mean the last five years previous to the calendar year in which the servant has retired. That being so we have the perfectly stupid condition that if a man’s birthday is on the 28th or 29th of December, he loses the whole of that last year for pensionable purposes for which he has paid in, but if his birthday is the 1st of January, he gets the whole of that year. The difficulty arises in this way, that in many instances these servants reach the top grade of their salary in their last year and a number of instances have arisen where Railway servants have actually reached, in their last year, fairly substantial promotion and fairly substantial increases in salary, and they have paid additional contribution to the pension fund calculated on the increased salary, but because they have the misfortune to be born in December instead of January they have received no pension for the last year of their service, no return for the additional contribution which they have made. It does not seem to me that the Department can justify in any way the continuation of a system such as this. I understand representations have been made on several occasions. The Railway Administration is the most wonderful Department for putting up excuses. There is no problem under the sun that the Railway Department cannot find a glib answer for, and the suggestion is now made that this provision was deliberately inserted — mark you, Mr. Speaker, in 1902 — because the contributions under the old Natal Act are 1½ per cent. less than the contributions under the new fund. But the new fund was instituted something like 20 years after the Natal fund so that argument falls by the way. Again I find it has been suggested that the actuary framed it like that in order to make the fund balance, but there is no proof, so far as I know, that the actuary made a survey of the birthdays of the particular individuals who were members of that fund in the year 1902, and unless he had that information he could not have made any actuarial examination on those lines. I feel that this is a mistake that has been made in the past, it is a mistake which is costing certain individuals in the service a considerable amount of money. As a matter of fact I have had some specimen cases drawn up and in one instance it is quite possible for a man to lose £72 a year, or £6 a month, simply because his birthday happens to be the 27th or the 28th of December, rather than on the Scotch festival of the 1st January. I feel that this is something that can be investigated by the Select Committee. The hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) has fears which I do not share that if a select committee were appointed it would delay the passing of this Bill, but hon. members who have spoken so far in this House have spoken because they are interested in conferring added benefits on railwaymen and in clearing up some of the anomalies which exist and trying to do something for the worst type of cases quoted by the hon. member for Fordsburg. There is no necessity to search all over the country for evidence because all the Railway Unions are in possession of an incredible amount of data in connection with pension matters and they could lay their complaints and grievances and anomalies which exist before the Select Committee within a week and it would be quite possible to draft a new Bill which could easily be passed before the end of the session. I do not think the hon. member for Greyville is right in thinking that there would be much delay and I hope the Minister is not going to adopt the tactics we have seen of trying to frighten us with the story that if we don’t accept this we are depriving the railwaymen of certain benefits and we shall be dealt with in our constituencies. That is not true because a new Bill can be brought into effect before the end of the session. The Select Committee will have plenty of time to investigate very carefully all these things and I think a case has been made out for setting up such a Select Committee. I would like before I sit down to bring forward the case of the men under the old Natal Act. I find it very difficult on any occasion in this House to allow the subject of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to pass without having something to say about it. I had a lot to say about it when the last Bill came before this House, and almost everything I have said in criticism of that Act has proved to be true. I am, therefore, a bit doubtful as to whether the Minister is actually conferring any benefit on the railway workers of South-West Africa by including them under the Bill. He is certainly not conferring any benefit on the widows of men who may be killed, because one of the scandals of the present Act is precisely that mentioned by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Quinlan) and that is that it has so far proved almost impossible to get any of these additional benefits and the woman, no matter what her age may be, is left with a paltry two years’ salary or £300, whichever is the less. In the old days when they had common law rights it was possible for them to get, and in many cases they did get, thousands of pounds. No kind of regard seems to be paid to the age of the woman. Apparently the Act is run on the assumption that when a woman is left a widow she must necessarily get married again. That seems to be the assumption and it is one which I do not think should have been made. The Act has certainly borne very heavily indeed upon the widows of unfortunate railwaymen who are killed. In a huge service such as the Railway Department it would be rather stupid to expect it to be run with tiptop efficiency in every department. Errors do arise from time to time and cases of extreme negligence, which result in the death of individuals, and it should be possible for widows to obtain these extra benefits which the House decided should be given them because of this extra negligence. And that, of course, is a point which I feel could also be discussed by the Select Committee if the Minister would appoint it, particularly in view of the fact that another investigation is at present being conducted with reference to workmen’s compensation itself, and it does seem to me to be the wrong moment to bring the South-West Administration under the aegis of workmen’s compensation while we are ourselves considering the administration of that Act itself. In concluding I would appeal to the Minister not to look upon this Bill from the pure party standpoint. I do not think there has been any party political spirit displayed so far in this discussion. Some of my hon. friends may be inclined to laugh at that statement, but it is a fact that sometimes even in this House we can get a discussion without the party political spirit being raised, and insofar as I am particularly concerned with the position of these servants of the Administration who are still under the old Act. I am quite satisfied that I can get the assistance of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) and the hon. member for Germiston (North) (Mr. Quinlan) to assist me in trying to get an act of tardy justice for servants who must have spent many years in the service of the railway department. I feel justified in adding my few words in requesting the Minister to grant this Select Committee. And if he does not I must just give this little warning in advance, that I would object to the committee stage being taken just now, and I want to say that if we do not get a committee then I propose later on to use my position in this House to introduce certain amendments when we are in Committee on this Bill.

I have reasons of my own for not being entirely satisfied with this Bill which the hon. the Minister has brought into the House this evening, but it is a reason which is shared by some 50,000 others. I refer to the non-European employees of the Railway Department. In introducing the Bill, it is true that the Minister did make it clear that this was not intended as a comprehensive review of the pension position in the railway service. But he did suggest that it was intended to remove at least some of the anomalies, and some of the obvious injustices that at present exist under the old Acts. I could have wished that in his attempt to remove the anomalies and injustices, he had spread his net a little wider, and had offered some consolation to that large section of railway servants all of whose conditions are as unsatisfactory as they can possibly be. I know that the bulk of these 50,000 non-European employees of the railways are not covered by pension rights under the Acts which it is the intention of this Bill to amend. That is simply because under those Acts the definition of permanent servant is such that only the merest handful of that quite considerable army of labourers can qualify to be regarded as eligible for inclusion in a pension scheme. The ordinary definitions exclude them, and even if they succeed in satisfying the terms of the definition of permanent employee, they would still find themselves outside the range of a pension fund for the reason that their wages would not rise to the level which would qualify them for inclusion, that is because only a small number of them rise to the 5s. which is the basis for inclusion under the Act. The result is that all of these employees are forced into the ranks of casual labourers to-day. In some cases they are called temporary labourers, but technically their position is exactly the same — they all rank so far as pension rights are concerned as casual labourers, that is people without any pension rights at all. All they do get in fact is that after fifteen years’ service they may be given at the discretion of the General Manager a gratuity amounting to ten day’s pay for each year’s service. I contend that in the first instance a man who has served fifteen years in the Department, even though it may not be continuous service, as is provided for in the Act, is not in essence a casual labourer, and should not be treated as such, and in the second place I contend that the wage scales that at present exist in the Department are such that in the first instance a man working on those scales is completely incapable of making any provision for his old age, and if he does get a gratuity after many years of service, he will get an amount which may or may not carry him through one year of life. I have here a typical case; but I wish to say on this point that I have no complaint in any of my dealings with the Department, I have found that in every case I have brought before the permanent officials, they have been sympathetic and willing to do their best for their servants, but they are tied hand and foot by legislation which defines the position and they cannot go outside the scope of it. Here is a typical case which I want to bring to the notice of the House, because I do want to enlist the sympathy of the House. I think it is a recognised fact that while there are continuous appeals made on behalf of the European workers, it is very rare that appeals are made on behalf of the non-European workers. Legislation on behalf of labour has shewn a singular neglect of the interests of non-Europeans. On practically no occasion have they received any of the benefits which have been given progressively to European servants. Now this man to whom I am referring entered the railway service in 1904. He was continuously in the service until 1938 with the exception of four years when he went to serve in the war. He went off in 1914 and was away until 1918 serving his country. He back in 1918 when he again entered the service. So to all intents and purposes he has been continuously in the service since 1905. He retired in 1938 and was granted a magnificent gratuity of £34. Now, it does happen that in fact the Department has only given him his gratuity in respect of eighteen years of service, because they have found it impossible to trace the record of his earlier service. That is not his fault; the records are apparently not complete. I must say that they made every effort to trace this particular servant’s record in view of the fact that he had been away during the war doing his duty to his country, but they have not been able to trace it. But if they had been able to trace it, they would then have given him the equally magnificent sum of £77. He would have got £77 in a lump sum as a gratuity for serving in the Railway Department from 1905 to 1938, but he only got £34 because the general manager of the department says that they are unable to trace his earlier service. I have a letter here from the general manager in which he says—

It is because of these two facts, first of all that the gratuity based on the man’s wage is so lamentably inadequate both to his needs and to the recognition of his services to the community, that the department has no administrative power in the matter to make any concessions they might wish to make, that I am sorry the Minister did not see his way to consider this matter in this Bill. This man in getting £34 for eighteen years service did extremely well, because he happened to be employed in Port Elizabeth and his wage rate used to be 4s. 6d.; it was 4s. when he retired. If he had worked in Johannesburg he would have got just about two-thirds of that, because his maximum wage would have been 2s. 6d. I ask you, how long can a man live on £20? Well, this man got £34, and he writes that he is starving, that he cannot keep his family. In other words he is thrown back derelict on the community after having served the department all these years. I do consider that this matter needs some attention and I think that attention is long overdue. The point which concerns me is this: I know that the Minister is going into the matter. There is a committee of enquiry investigating all the conditions of non-European service. But in order to improve this particular position at all we must have legislation, and I know from experience that it is extremely difficult to get any legislation through this House to provide benefits for non-Europeans unless that benefit is wedged in between benefits for Europeans. I am wondering when we shall be able to get the House to consider this position, and to rectify a grave injustice. I may just add this: I never expected that it would be possible for me to hand out any congratulations to the rest of the Government service in regard to the conditions of employment of non-European workers, but I must say that bad as conditions are, and they are bad, they are a good deal better in this respect — they are considerably better in this respect in the other departments than in the Railways. It is possible for a non-European worker in any other Government department, after fifteen years service in the department, to get a small pension. That is, he has a continuous source of income, even though it may be small; and I must say that the wage rates also are a little better than on the Railways. Here we have the position that we have not only thoroughly bad Railway wage rates, but we have Railway wage rates which are progressively worse, and not better, so that the people who derive their gratuities on the basis of those rates get progressively smaller gratuities as their demands have increased, and the standard of living has gone up. All these facts merit the attention of the Minister. I am sure the Minister is sympathetic, but I want to know what hope we have, if he does not accept this proposal to send this Bill to a select committee — I wonder what hope there is that we may have some other legislation in the near future which will remove this serious injustice and provide more equitable pension provision for non-European Railway servants.

After having had the privilege of listening to the Minister of Railways in his explanation of this Bill now before the House I have come to the conclusion that the Minister in this Bill is doing his best to render a great service to the employees of the Railway Department so far as pensions are concerned, and I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to express my thanks to the Minister for his good intentions. I think it is the sensible thing for any Government, and for any department, to treat its workers as well as it possibly can, as well as the state can afford to do. By doing that we ensure good work from our workers, from our employees; we ensure loyalty from them, and generally speaking the work done by them will be on a sounder basis. If it is the Minister’s intention, by means of this Bill, to render a service to his employees — and I have no doubt that that is his intention, and, as a matter of fact, the Minister has said so himself — I feel that the most sensible thing the Minister can do is to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). It has already been stated by an hon. member that in the Bill before the House, and in the amendment proposed, there is no question of party politics. But if by accepting this amendment we have a select committee appointed to bring about what the Minister aims at, and to achieve a state of perfection, then surely it is advisable to try and achieve such a state of perfection. I take it that the Minister will be pleased to accept this amendment so that what he has in mind may be carried into effect as thoroughly as possible.

We have listened to-night to a very comprehensive discussion in regard to pension matters as they affect the railway staff, not only those who are qualified to contribute, to existing funds, but to those who are not. If I have any special sympathy, it is with the section of the staff whom the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) referred to. But, sir, I wish also to say that I have every sympathy for the cases submitted by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) and by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Burnside). I feel, sir, that, in connection with such a huge staff as that of the South African Railways and Harbours, cases will arise from time to time which call for an amendment of the Pension Fund Acts that govern the conditions under which the staff work. But, sir, I was given to understand that this Bill had received the support of the staff unions of the Railways and Harbours. I was given to understand that, and I have not heard anything to the contrary from the representatives of an organisation with whom I have been in close contact.

I repeat what I have said on other occasions that before any measure affecting the staff of the South African Railways and Harbours is discussed here, we should know the opinion of the elected representatives of the staff on that particular subject. In the staff unions of the South African Railways and Harbours, you have men who are fully acquainted with every circumstance surrounding the conditions of employment. I look upon this measure as one which rectifies certain omissions which have been noticed in existing Acts, and which places the Administration in a position to continue what they have been doing, and further to confer benefits in respect of the payment of double pension fund contributions in the case indicated by the Minister. If a Select Committee of this House had time to investigate the numerous cases that have been mentioned here, and also the important case put forward by the hon. member for Cape Eastern—if they had time to consider those, and submit a fresh Bill this session, there would be a case perhaps for the appointment of a Select Committee, but I doubt it very much—in fact I am certain from my experience that this Bill would not see the light of day again this session if the matter was referred to a Select Committee. I rather share the view of the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) that we shall be doing our duty to the staff unions and to the men generally, as well as to the Administration, if we get this Bill through now. If, in the course of debates in this House, it is made clear to Parliament that the whole question of pension funds of the South African Railways and Harbours needs to be investigated and reviewed, then it is a question as to whether we should have a Select Committee, or whether the whole should be discussed by the Minister at a conference with representatives of the men.

That has been done.

Plus the consideration, that, in the case of members of the staff who have no association at all, the Minister himself should give the matter very close consideration in regard to the question of gratuities. It has been said that these matters have been discussed with the railway staff unions. The hon. member for Germiston (North) (Mr. Quinlan) raised the question of the Widows’ Pension Fund. I should like the Minister to tell this House what was the finding of the staff associations with regard to the question of widows’ pensions. I myself contribute to this day to the old Cape Widows’ Pension Fund, and I think it is a lack on the part of the administration that there is no similar fund in existence to-day. That matter should be reviewed by the Minister in consultation with the representatives of the staff unions. I should be very pleased indeed, particularly if the Minister could give sympathetic consideration to the men who are retired through the grounds of ill-health. That is a case which calls for more consideration than that of men who retire through the ordinary effluxion of time. These and other points should, I think, be made the subject of a very careful investigation by the experts of the administration in consultation with the staff. I impress upon the House, in matters of this kind, that it should be guided by the expert advice of those elected to represent the men, whilst not disparaging in any way the efforts of my hon. friend on my left.

[Inaudible.]

There is much to be said for the point of view expressed by the hon. member for Umbilo. I also have a great deal of sympathy with what has been mentioned by the hon. member for Fordsburg, but I say the objects will not be achieved by the submission of this matter to a Select Committee, if it is combined with the holding up of this Bill. I consider that it is in, the interests of the staff that this Bill should be passed. If a motion comes before the House, in regard to the reference of pension fund matters, to a Select Committee for investigation, I think that would have my sympathy. What I feel is that where we can come to finality on questions affecting the interests of the staff, we should do so with the utmost expedition, and that matters requiring very careful investigation should be made the subject of an inquiry which would however cover a very considerable amount of time because of the importance of all these suggestions and their relationship to the existing Pension Fund Acts of the South African Railways and Harbours.

I should like in the first place to thank hon. members who have taken part in this discussion for the moderate tone of their speeches, and the general assistance which they have offered to the Minister in connection with this proposal. I think, generally speaking, members have tried to put far more into the Bill than is intended. It is an ordinary small measure, correcting a few anomalies in our pensions legislation, and it does nothing more than do this. It does nothing to revise the pension fund, and it would be a mistake, at this stage, to try and saddle this Bill with anything more. With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) he rather emphasised that he did not see very much benefit for railway workers in this Bill. But as I pointed out, the Railways have been, to some extent, transgressing the law in their desire to help the railway workers, and it is certain that unless this Bill is passed, the railway workers will find the application of the strict letter of the law will be necessary, unless the Controller and Auditor-General get his validity for irregularities, and the railway workers will be squeezed very hard. They will not be as well off as they are to-day. Now the House must remember when they give increased benefits in a pension fund to the contributors, you also increase the contributions of the contributors, and obviously if any question of increased pensions is to be considered, then the first people to consider them must be the staffs themselves. They get the benefit, and they have to pay. It would be quite wrong to proceed except by way of the staffs, in respect of any alterations to our pensions legislation. The case of men retired owing to physical disability or ill health which the hon. member for Fordsburg brought up, is already being dealt with, as the hon. member probably knows. There has been a circular sent to the whole of the staff, indicating a plan for amending our gratuity arrangements in respect of men retired for physical disability, bringing it more into the line with what is done in the public service itself. I think we have gone a long way to meet the points raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg. That circular is already in the hands of the staff, and it is going to be considered by the Superannuation Fund Committee. After they have considered it, it will be time enough to decide whether there is need for future legislation, or for a select committee to investigate these things or not. It seems to me that it would be altogether premature at this stage, in view of the fact that these amendments are in prospect for a select committee to sit and deal with matters which even the staff themselves have not yet had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on. I may say that at the conclusion of this circular it is stated—

If they decide on a change in the plans and there are advantages and disadvantages so far as the employees are concerned, then I am perfectly prepared to follow out their wishes and bring in any amending legislation later on that may be necessary. I hope for that reason you will not insist on holding up this much smaller matter, because of something that is already being considered. Of course, even in the case indicated by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Schoeman) the man does not lose anything unless he commutes his pension or part of it. It is only in the case of commutation, and you know where commutation is desired there must be a medical examination and the commutation must be adjusted accordingly. It is only in that case that the man loses anything. The point which the hon. member raised about the payment of men who are undergoing trial or suspension during their period of suspension comes under the disciplinary regulations and has nothing whatever to do with the Bill that we are amending.

That is a very important point.

I may tell the hon. member that it is a point I have been giving a great deal of attention to during the last three or four weeks. We have had some cases, and I do feel that there is something to be said about controlling in some way the power of an official to decide whether or not a servant is to be paid, or not paid, according to his own view of a particular case. If a man is let off by the court he may get the whole of his pay deducted during his period of suspension, or he may get a portion of it, or none at all, but it does seem to me that there ought to be possibly some form of appeal against the decision of the immediate officer. My only difficulty in agreeing to some form of appeal is that one naturally does not want to do anything which may upset the discipline of the Railways. However, the point is one that I have a certain amount of sympathy with, and it is receiving attention. With regard to what the hon. member for Germiston (North) said this Bill is certainly not the result of any complete investigation of our pension fund. I made that perfectly clear. In regard to the point he made as to the weaknesses of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it may be quite true that there are weaknesses, but I would remind the hon. member that a select committee of this House is even now dealing with that. In bringing the South-West African employees of the Railways into this legislation obviously I bring them in as it may be amended by this select committee. It is not for the Minister of Railways to offer to alter the Workmen’s Compensation provisions. That is a matter for the Minister of Labour. If the Minister of Labour corrects these weaknesses then the South-West railway servants will benefit.

Do you contemplate a new Workmen’s Compensation Act this session?

I would rather the hon. member asked the Minister of Labour. It is a point upon which I have no information. With regard to what was said by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) that we are interpreting the Natal Act rather harshly, I would remind him that we are interpreting that Act as the old Natal Government interpreted it. We have not changed the interpretation at all, and they had the opportunity for twelve months of transferring from the Natal Act to our new Superannuation Fund, in which case they would get seven years instead of five years. The fact that some did not transfer indicates that there were advantages in remaining under that Act, which probably more than counterbalanced the disadvantage of five years instead of seven. The fact that they did not exercise their right to transfer indicates that they remained for good reasons under the Act as it was then being interpreted and as it is now being interpreted. With regard to the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) her case again is based on another Act altogether. We are not touching the Act of 1928. I would, therefore, suggest that some more appropriate occasion should be taken by the hon. member to discuss the very interesting points which she raised. I would remind her that we have a departmental committee now sitting looking into the conditions of non-European workers, and it is possible they may have suggestions that may in some way meet the wishes of the hon. member. In regard to the point made by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) when he asked whether the staff had agreed to this, I would say that the Superannuation Fund Committee, on which the staff is represented, have supported all the pension provisions of this Bill and want them passed. I feel that it would not be fair to our men to go into the question of a select committee at this stage covering the whole ground. I cannot agree with the member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Burnside) that it could possibly be done in a month, knowing the complications and difficulties of the subject. The staff alone would require longer to prepare their case for the select committee, and in view of the fact that already proposals have been made to the staff amending the pension arrangements on the lines indicated by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman), I feel that the member for Durban (Umbilo) will not unduly press that point.

Amendment put and negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I object.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 27th March.

I move—

This is a very simple little Bill and I believe that hon. members will find it quite acceptable. The object is to bring about an amendment to one aspect of the Fencing Act of 1912 and to a similar provision in the amending Act of the Fencing Act of 1922. The Fencing Act of 1912 provides that the fencing of farms may be made compulsory by proclamation in certain prescribed areas, provided a request for such compulsory provisions is first addressed to the Minister, either by a Divisional Council or, where there is no Divisional Council, by a majority of a meeting called after having been duly advertised. The 1922 Act makes the same provision in regard to jackal-proof fencing. Well, in both instances the Minister has no discretion to-day. If such a request is made to him he has to have a proclamation issued to make the fencing compulsory. In the Act there is naturally also provision for Land Bank loans being made to a farmer who is compelled to fence his farm in accordance with these provisions. But, as hon. members know, the Land Bank Board is restricted in certain regards so far as the granting of loans is concerned. The Land Bank has to have adequate security as laid down in the Act. As a result cases do occur where the farmer is compelled to fence his land, but where the Land Bank is not able to grant the necessary loan, in which case the farmer has to carry out the work at his own expense. This aspect of the matter has caused difficulty in the past, but latterly the difficulty has become a very real one as a result of the increased cost of fencing material, and this has brought with it the fact that in quite a number of cases farmers have found it difficult to comply with the provisions of the Act. In order to deal with that position this Bill has now been introduced. The object of this Bill is to give the Minister the necessary discretion. Instead of making it compulsory for him to declare a certain area to be an area where fencing shall take place, he may do so if he considers it advisable. That will be the result of our passing clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill. But then we go further, and in clause 3 it is laid down that if such a proclamation has already been issued, the Minister shall have the discretion in such areas to say that the obligation need not be strictly carried out in all cass. I think the object of the Bill is quite clear, and I therefore move the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Third reading on 27th March.

I do not intend to delay the House long to-night on the subject of this Bill. I know that it is an agreed measure, that it is a Bill which is going to be welcomed by all sides of the House. When I rose on the earlier occasion on which this Bill was before the House it was to mention one or two aspects of the matter that appeared to me important. I was very gratified at the recognition of the needs of the native population which I regard as implicit in the composite character of the new Nutritional Council to be established, the composite character which includes the membership of the Secretary for Native Affairs. That I regard as a belated recognition of the need for attention to the declining health of our native population. The neglect of this fact was threatening to cost this country very dear in view not only of the very high death rate, but of what obviously must be a corollary of that death rate, the high morbidity rate. I know that this high mortality rate and this high morbidity rate are not due merely to malnutrition, but there is a very general tendency for people investigating this matter to come to the conclusion that at least where the lowest social strata of the population are concerned, underfeeding does tend to aggravate many of the disabilities under which they suffer. Further, we have had a considerable amount of evidence recently as to the declining health of our African people, and there is no doubt that malnutrition is a large contributory cause of that decline. Just recently the Imperial Government was so concerned about this matter that they appointed a commission of enquiry to investigate the whole subject throughout the African territories, and I think it might be of interest to this House to know the conclusions of that enquiry. The members of the commission reported in regard to all the British African territories—

The recognition of the basic cause of weakness in a population is a gain, and a very considerable gain. But I am hopeful that we have achieved another gain in the establishment of this nutritional council. That is the recognition of the fact which various people have tried to drive home in this City for years, and which the secretary for public health has also tried to drive home for years from his angle—that malnutrition is like every other deficiency condition, not purely a public health problem, it is largely a social and economic problem, and therefore it can only be treated effectively if it is regarded from the social and economic angle as well as from the angle of public health. I am hopeful that the composite constitution of this nutritional council does mean that we are going to have an approach to this whole problem from these various angles, and that it means an attempt to get at the roots of the trouble instead of merely having palliative measures to deal with it. So far as the native population is concerned, I feel that there are obvious directions in which the State can find ways of dealing with the position, if only the country is willing to look for the causes in the right places. We are having evidence put before our eyes every day. The Public Health Department reports extensively this year as to the condition both of the farming population and of the reserve population, and in each case it finds that the condition, the low standard of health, is due to bad feeding. So far as the territories are concerned, the reserves, they attribute that low standard of feeding to overcrowding and bad agriculture. So far as the farms are concerned, they attribute it to the changing conditions of farm life which make it increasingly difficult for farmers to provide their servants with ground on which to grow vegetables or ground on which to herd stock and the tendency of the farmer to continue his old practices in regard to the giving of rations without taking into account the losses to the servants of these other sources of food. So far as the towns are concerned, we know what the evil is there. We have only to put alongside one another our own published record of what people earn and the findings of medical authorities as to what is actually necessary for people to maintain any decent standard of living. Let me just give one such set of figures. The industrial census gives as an average annual wage for secondary industry an amount of £42 for unskilled workers, but medical analysis insists that it needs at least £6 for a family of five for food alone. It is essential if this council is going to perform the functions which we hope it will do, that it will induce the community to see these facts and will encourage the community to tackle them as root causes of the situation. I should like to have some assurance that this council is going to face the necessity both for more land to relieve the congestion of the native people, and to encourage better use of the land by better agricultural methods so that the people may stand on their own feet, and I hope that the council will also see to it that the farming community is encouraged to revise their labour conditions so that they will come more into line with the needs of the labour force. So far as the towns are concerned, in that direction it is true that the Wage Board is doing its best to get up the level of wages, and I am hopeful that the Government will help the Wage Board either by increasing its members, or in other ways enable it to cover the field more rapidly than it can do at present. In other words I hope that the work of this committee will be definitely constructive and will have the effect of freeing people from the necessity of Government assistance. I hope that it is going to approach its task not in the spirit of poor relief, but in the spirit of social reform.

I shall only delay the House for a few minutes. I want to congratulate the Minister on having introduced this measure which I hope will have the effect of placing the whole problem of nutrition on a sounder basis. The provisions of this Bill mean that the whole problem has now been placed on the map of this country. The question of undernourishment is a most serious question in this country, and it will have to be very carefully considered by this council. The task of this council will not be a question of teaching the people what sort of food to eat, but it will be a question of investigating why people have not enough food to eat. Much more attention will be paid to the findings of this council than to discussions in this House. The council will have to consider why it is that people have not sufficient to eat, and having investigated that problem I hope they will be able to come along with a recommendation which will carry weight with the Government and with this House. I am somewhat nervous of the constitution of this council, but I entirely agree that certain departments must be associated with it. I hope in the appointment of members who are not members of the civil service to this council, the Government will see to it that men, and women too, I hope, will be appointed to the council not merely because they have a knowledge of diet. That is a matter of little importance. It has been said that it is not necessary to be able to make a pudding in order to be able to judge whether it is good or otherwise. People should be appointed who will give sympathetic consideration to these problems when they investigate them. I hope in that regard that the Minister will be prepared to extend, in some slight degree, the functions as laid down in Clause 6 of this Bill, because in connection with that clause it would seem that the only question upon which a council will be called upon, will be the question of malnutrition. I hope the Minister will see that it is laid down specifically that the nutritional council will investigate the whole problem of nutrition. Unless something of that nature is done, the Bill will not be effective.

It is encouraging to find the warm welcome that this Bill has received form all sides of the House. That is an excellent augury for the future of this National Nutrition Council. Observations have been made both tonight and in the course of a previous debate, and they will be borne in mind by me and by my department, and no doubt will be of use and service to the council when it commences its work. As far as the point raised by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is concerned, it seems to me that Section 6 of the Bill is sufficiently wide and elastic to meet the object he has in view. It states that the function of the council shall be to investigate and report to the Minister of Public Health upon all matters relating directly and indirectly to the prevention of malnutrition, and the improvement of the diet of the inhabitants of the Union. We wish to make the scope and functions of this council as wide and as flexible as possible. There is no attempt at all at restriction, and I am hopeful of its future success. If the council really gets a grip of the problem it has to face, it may do a great deal of constructive and useful work not only on behalf of the consumers, but on behalf of the primary producers, the farmers, of this country. Therefore, I welcome the manner in which the Bill has been received on all sides. It is a good augury for the future, and I hope that the spirit in which it has been received in this House will be continued.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1.

I have an amendment to move, and there is no snag about it. I wish to move to omit sub-section (3) and to substitute the following new sub-section—

1. (3) The powers and the duties of the Municipalities of Goodwood and Parow under the Public Health Act, 1919, or any amendment thereof shall, as from the respective dates of establishment of those Municipalities, be deemed to have been transferred under sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Public Health Act, 1919, Amendment Act, 1927, to the Divisional Council of the Cape, and the expenditure which has been incurred by the Divisional Council aforesaid, in the area of the Municipality of Goodwood, between the date of its establishment and the first day of July, 1939, in respect of any matter falling within such powers or duties, shall be deemed to have been lawfully incurred.

The purpose of this amendment is to provide for the position of the Municipality of Parow in the Cape Peninsula. Hon. members will recollect that sub-clause (1) deals with the position of certain local authorities whose powers and duties under the Public Health Act were taken over by the Divisional Council. Sub-clause (3) regularises the position of the Municipality of Goodwood, which became a municipality in October, 1938. Parow also became a municipality in September, 1939, and, so far, the transfer of powers from the Municipality of Parow to the Divisional Council of the Cape, has not as yet been of legal effect. It is now desired to do so, and the effect of the proposed new Clause (1) (3) will be to legalise the transfer of the powers not only of Goodwood Municipality but also of the Parow Municipality, to the Divisional Council of the Cape.

As no notice was given of this amendment I have not had an opportunity of examining its effect but it seems to me from what the hon. minister says that it may have the effect of extending the scope of the Bill.

This point has not been brought to my notice previously. I would merely submit, with respect, that the long title of the Bill is to amend the Public Health Act, 1919, Amendment Act, 1927, to provide for the transfer of certain powers and duties to and to legalise certain expenditure incurred by the Divisional Council of the Cape. My submission is that the House should accept the position that this measure has the effect of transferring certain duties and powers from certain local authorities to the Divisional Council. This amendment is not in conflict with the principle of the Bill. The amendment adds a municipality to the one mentioned originally in sub-clause 3 of clause 1 of the Bill. In my submission, with great respect, I suggest that we are not extending the scope of the Bill at all. We are merely adding another item to the one already mentioned in clause 1 (3).

It is the addition of a municipality not mentioned in the Bill as read a second time that creates the difficulties. If the amendment increases the scope of the Bill it will require an instruction before I can put it.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 27th March.

I move—

The object of this Bill is to make certain necessary amendments to the existing Land Bank Act. There is no important principle contained in this Bill, and each clause so to speak stands on its own feet. The best way for me to explain this Bill to the House is therefore to say something on each of the clauses. May I say first of all that this Bill has been made necessary particularly by the passing of the Co-operative Societies’ Act of last year. The object of this Bill first of all is to bring the provisions of the Land Bank Act into harmony with the provisions of the Co-operative Societies’ Act, but at the same time advantage is taken of the opportunity to introduce other necessary amendments. Clause 2 aims at harmonising the definition of a co-operative society in the Land Bank Act with the definition in the new Co-operative Societies’ Act. Clause 3 deals with the position of members of the Land Bank Board who have to be given leave of absence on account of illness. There is no provision in this respect in the existing Acts, and this clause provides for such a position. Hon. members will see that the period of time for which provision is made is 39 days, which means practically for three months. The Land Bank Board meets three times a week, so that this provision practically means that three months’ leave of absence can be granted. Clause 4 is intended to amend clause 21 of the Principal Act under which the Land Bank is prevented from granting loans to farms already bonded to the State. In practice the Board has actually given such loans in respect of farms which are under bond to the State, such bonds having been entered into in connection with soil erosion loans or loans for boreholes, although actually such action on the part of the Board was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. We are now legalising the position and by doing so we are legalising the practice which has been in vogue for the past two years. Clause 5 provides for the amendment of clause 23 of the Principal Act. As hon. members know the Land Bank Board is not allowed to grant loans where the amount exceeds 60 per cent. of the security available. The value of a farm may sometimes depreciate or a consolidation of loans may take place, or the interest on a bond may be in arrear, and it may then happen that the amount of the loan will exceed 60 per cent. of the security. Occasionally loans are called up and if the farm is sold the Land Bank has the right to transfer the loans to the new buyer, even though the amount may exceed 60 per cent. of the security. But if the farm is sold before the loan is called up, the Land Bank is not entitled to transfer the loan if it exceeds 60 per cent. of the security. The object of this clause is to enable the Land Bank to transfer loans or advances of more than 60 per cent. of the security if the new owner takes over the obligations of the previous owner. Clause 6 deals with stamp duties. Under the existing law no stamp duties are payable if the Land Bank gives a guarantee on behalf of co-operative societies. But sometimes the guarantee is issued before the society has approved of the loan, and in such instances the guarantee has to be issued on a personal basis by the directors, and stamp duties have to be paid in such cases. The object of this clause is to release a transaction of that kind from the payment of stamp duties. Then clause 7 contains an amendment of clause 3 of the 1922 Act. The object of the clause in the 1922 Act was to grant the Land Bank ownership rights over the products handled by a co-operative society on behalf of its members. The object of this clause is to give the Land Bank Board a mortgaging power instead of an ownership right in respect of products of that kind. It will mean practically the same security being given but it will avoid certain administrative difficulties. Clause 8 only aims at the deletion of one of the sub-clauses of the 1922 Act which is no longer required, because the subject dealt with in that sub-section is covered by a similar provision in the 1922 Act. In clause 9 we have a provision rendered necessary as the result of the Co-operative Societies’ Act. Under the original Act a co-operative society would only handle the products of its own members. To-day such a society can also handle the products of non-members, and this clause gives the Land Bank Board the power to give advances on products of that kind as well. Clause 10 aims at making certain small amendments in connection with the bank’s securities in relation to advances made in the form of cash credits for sugar farmers. The point is of minor importance, and it is unnecessary for me to go into details. Clause 11 relates to a practice which has been followed repeatedly. As hon. members know the Government often gives a guarantee to the Land Bank when it grants loans in connection with crops, for instance to the Mealie Control Board. This is done to-day solely on a Government guarantee. The Select Committee on Public Accounts, however, has raised objections to this practice, and has pointed to the desirability of the matter being placed on a legal basis. This clause has that effect, and the result will be that henceforth under the Act the Government will have the right to grant such guarantees to the Land Bank Board. I think that those are all the points dealt with in this Bill and I now move the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

On Clause 10,

There is a minor amendment in this clause, the desirability of which has been drawn attention to by the Parliamentary draughtsman. I therefore move—

Agreed to.

Clauses, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with an amendment.

Amendment in clause 10 considered and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.