I wish to point out the importance of this report—

I fear that the hon. member is referring to the first order which has already been dealt with.

The report was adopted.

The Minister of Railways and Harbours and Mr. de Waal appointed a Committee to bring up a Bill.

I would like to put to the Committee a point arising out of sub-section 2. It is stated that—

The principal Act only has three schedules. Is it necessary to put this in at all? I submit that it would make the Bill much clearer if the last part were omitted. I therefore move—

The Parliamentary draftsman has reported that this clause is unnecessary.

It is a matter of drafting, and I do not think it is of very much importance. I have no objection to the amendment.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 is really the governing clause. I move as an amendment—

That is the South African College School, which we have discussed so much. The Minister has had the whole of last night and this morning to think over the matter, and possibly he may take a more lenient view now. I know it will require the Governor-General’s authority. I am not going to take up the time of the House by going over what was said yesterday. I think it is a fair proposition which we make. One argument I would use, however, which was not used yesterday. If this school is separated from the ordinary schools, it means that teachers in that school lose all their pension rights. These teachers are now on the ordinary teachers’ pensions list and are regarded as teachers in the Cape Province as in any other public school. The Administrator proposes to take them out of that, to make them a refund of the payments they have made to the teachers’ pensions fund, and then to be clear of them. It is pretty hard, after men have subscribed to that fund for some years to be treated in that way, and I do appeal to the Minister, especially as it does not mean any more expenditure in the long run, I think the school has more than justified its existence, and there is no reason that I can see, or any other reasonable man could see, why this school should be destroyed, for that is what it means.

I very much regret that I cannot allow myself to be drawn into this controversy. This Bill has nothing to do with the whole question we debated yesterday afternoon. The hon. member says the school cannot exist on the reduced grant, but I am not reducing the grant. If it is to be reduced, it will be done by another body under its rights. I am not advocating the apparent injustice to the teachers. That is an argument which can be adduced when the relative Bill is under discussion. I must appeal to the House now, to allow the Bill to go through, and I must plead with hon. members not to drag my Bill into the discussion of this which is a very important question to Cape Town, but which really has nothing to do with the Bill. All the arguments used yesterday can be used when any measures are brought forward which the school authorities and the public of Cape Town think would not be in the direction of dealing justly with this school. I do not see that my Bill will prejudice that position. I am not pressing for the grant to the school to be reduced. This Bill merely deals with the grant to the province. The province is quite satisfied. This Bill actually gives an increased grant to the province in respect of this school. Whatever measure they introduce afterwards, to deal with the school, is not the concern of the Treasury at all. I hope the matter will not be pressed, and that the fight will be reserved for the appropriate occasion when a measure is brought into the House, or the Administrator deals with it in another place.

As the amendment proposed by Mr. Jagger is similar to that ruled out on the second schedule last night, I am unable to put it to the Committee.

Yes, but I thought the Minister might have obtained that.

We had a fair fight yesterday, and I do not propose to carry on the argument, but I would like to make this appeal to the Minister. I would ask him to reconsider the position and take the necessary steps to get the authority of the Governor-General. It is quite true that it does not affect the position directly, but indirectly it does. You have specially safeguarded the church primary schools, and what I want now is for the S.A.C. school to be protected in the same way. Under the present Bill a subsidy is being given to the S.A.C. school on the £5 basis, and we may be perfectly certain that the provincial authorities will make the basis apply to the “Sacs” school. We want to prevent a possible or probable injustice being done.

I move—

The words “above the age of” in lines 34 and 47 are ambiguous. I move—

The amendments proposed by the Minister of Finance and Mr. Blackwell were put and agreed to.

What is the meaning of the words in regard to the grants for teachers?

In some cases practically the whole of the instruction is given in institutions not maintained by the provincial councils, and in these cases the provinces will not be paid the whole grant.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

moved To omit sub-section (3) and to substitute the following new sub-section:

This deals with the matter raised by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), when we discussed the second reading of the Bill. The Governor-General will have the right to prescribe regulations, not only in regard to the salaries of teachers, but in regard to the whole of the grant. Seeing that this money is provided by a special fund, the provinces should expend the money under regulations to be laid down. That was the original intention.

What is the meaning of the words “adjustment of salaries of native teachers?”

We have taken over the wording from the existing Act.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

This means you are going to advance money to the provinces for the purpose of provincial stores and requisites. As I pointed out in the second reading, as far as we can ascertain, these stores have been mismanaged. I think if they were adequately examined they would show a loss. Now it is proposed to advance to the Cape Province a loan of £100,000. The stock is between £90,000 and £100,000.

No, the money has been advanced previously.

Is this then to ratify what has been done in the past? They have not got it in the Transvaal yet.

Yes, they have.

What about the towns in the Free State, have they got it? They would have the right to call for it. It is wrong to let the provinces go into trading in this fashion.

There is some misunderstanding, judging by what the hon. member has said. The position is that the provinces can come to us generally for capital expenditure, but there is doubt as to whether we can give them money for this particular purpose, that was why special legislation was introduced to make effective the grant the previous Government gave for the purpose. In the Transvaal they have built up a requisite store out of revenue. We cannot stop the Cape Province having a store like this, and if there has been mismanagement it is a matter the Cape Provincial Council have to put right. The same argument might be put in regard to mismanagement of a hospital or school. It is their function. They have it at present, and if any of the other provinces make out a good case for this sort of capital expenditure, we shall be able to let them have it, though at present I don’t contemplate giving advances of this nature.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I shall be glad if the Minister will explain what he means by the latter part of the clause, because it is taking large powers to the Government. I mean that part of the clause which says—

This is to cover a case we had a few months ago in connection with which I had to obtain a special vote of the House. At Piet Retief they had an experimental station on ground belonging to the municipality, which was abandoned. We were approached to allow the buildings to be used for educational purposes. The buildings were there and were suitable for use for educational purposes, but we could not make the grant, and I had to come to the House and get a special grant. The Treasury would scrutinize these grants very carefully, and only where a good case could be made out would they give consent to allow the provinces to get hold of any property belonging to the Government.

I don’t agree with it at all. We have no objection to the transfer of buildings, but it is quite right to come to Parliament to get assent. I think the Minister should come to the House, and I lay stress on that. There is no trouble when it is explained to the House, but I object to leaving power in the hands of the Government. It does not exist now, and I move—

The Bill deals with existing buildings, but by these words there is nothing to prevent us supplying new buildings. If it were to deal with existing buildings, it would not be the same thing, but it may give the power to provide new buildings.

The Treasury would not do that.

The Treasury might do some funny things.

I should be the last to whittle down Parliamentary control of finance, and I will not press it if the House does not wish to retain these words. I am as jealous as anybody of Parliamentary control.

Agreed to.

Clause as amended put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

Is this from the bank they are going to be allowed to borrow, or only from the Treasury?

At present they are restricted to borrowing only on overdraft. We want to give them wider powers of borrowing not necessarily on overdraft. If they can get money on more advantageous terms for a fixed period they will have the right to do so.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I move—

1. (a) In the case of a tax on the income of an individual not more than 20 per centum, or, if he be unmarried, 30 per centum of such portion of the aggregate amount payable by him in respect of normal tax and super tax as the Commissioner for Inland Revenue determines to be payable in respect of income from sources within the province. Such tax may be imposed in addition to any tax on persons which the province may impose.

To omit paragraph (b) of sub-section (4) and to substitute the following new paragraph:

1. (b) In the case of a tax in respect of any company (other than a life insurance company) not more than sixpence for each pound of taxable income derived from a source within the province where the tax is on the income or the profits of the company; and not more than one shilling for each pound of dividends distributed where the tax is on the dividends of the company, but a minimum tax not exceeding five pounds for each company may in every such case be imposed.

To omit paragraph (c) of sub-section (4).

To add at the end of sub-section (4): “For the purpose of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this sub-section the expressions ‘taxable income,’ ‘normal tax,’ and ‘super tax’ shall have the same meanings respectively as are assigned to those expressions in and for the purposes of the law for the time being governing income tax, except that taxable income shall mean only such taxable income as is derived from a source within the province.”

To add at the end of sub-section (6), on page 10: “or to receive such revenue as is derived under the Employers Tax Ordinance, 1922 (Ordinance No. 8 of 1922), and is due thereunder in respect of persons working for an employer during the twelve months ending the 30th day of June, 1925. Such Ordinance shall cease to be in operation in respect of any subsequent period.”

I regret that such short notice has been given of these very important amendments, for I would like to have had an opportunity of scrutinizing very narrowly the wording of these sections. One cannot stress too much the importance in an enabling section of this sort of accurate draughtsmanship and very careful expression of what the will of this House is. I reminded this committee the other evening that for 15 years our courts have been engaged in determining whether provincial ordinances are or are not intra vires, and the attention of the courts will be directed in future to other provincial ordinances sought to be passed under the enabling powers conferred by the schedule which we have passed and limited, or attempted to be limited, by this section which we are now going to pass. Therefore, no apology is needed for the very closest scrutiny of these particular sections. Dealing with these amendments, paragraphs (a) and (b), I take it that it is the intention of the Minister that there shall be two taxes, one a tax on companies and the other a tax on individuals, and where the power is given to tax a company in a particular way, that power shall not be given to tax an individual and, conversely, where power is given to tax individuals, power shall not be given to tax a company. My first point is this, that there is no definition of what is an individual and what is a company. When we come to the definition clause I am going to move an amendment to define a company in the same method as these other terms “taxable income,” “normal tax,” and so forth are defined in the income tax law itself. The income tax law contains the definition of a company. There a company is defined as a limited liability company. I take it that all others will, therefore, fall under the category of an “individual.” I make this suggestion to the Minister that, accepting my suggestion to define a company as it is defined in the income tax law, he should, instead of “individual” insert the words “person other than a company,” so that (a) will read. “In the case of a tax on the income of a person other than a company.” On the one basis, and in the case of a tax on a Company, it will be on the other basis. There is a second point. The section referring to the tax on individuals states—

In other words, we are to pay in the provinces this income tax on such portion of our income earned within the province “as the Commissioner for Inland Revenue determines to be payable.” This officer is now set up to fulfil a function which certainly he has not fulfilled under our present income tax law and to decide the very difficult question as to whether a disputed portion of income is earned or is rot earned within the province. I think that is wrong. I think it should be left as an objective question. In other words, we should pay income tax on the income which, as a matter of fact, we earn within the province. It should not be left to the opinion or determination of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. As this section now stands we are giving to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue the power of determining where income is earned in regard to provincial incomes which he certainly does not possess in regard to the more important Union income tax, and, as a matter of fact, which he ought not to possess. I, therefore, move, as amendments to these amendments—

I do not know whether the Minister has moved the whole of his amendments to clause 10 as printed.

Yes.

If so, I have certain consequential amendments to move—

I do not think the amendments by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) can do any harm, but we must not carry things too far. I have tried to meet the wishes of hon. members opposite and limit the thing as much as we possibly can. I hope, however, the hon. member will not press his amendment as to determination by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. To his other amendments I have no objection.

I agree with the Minister on this point that there should be a determining authority. You have it in connection with death dutes in the Transvaal, so that where the estate is in different provinces you have an authority to determine the question. After all this is only 20 per cent. of the income tax, and you must have some authority. I think it is right to have the Commissioner of Inland Revenue as the deciding authority in this case.

I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) and also the Minister’s difficulty. I am only moving these amendments in a desire to make the law as efficient as possible. It may be that the Minister is quite right, that there must be some authority to determine what income is earned in one province and what in another. But if that is so, then there must surely be some right of appeal against the decisions of the Commissioner just as there is under the ordinary income tax law. I will not press this point if the Minister will promise that he will consider the matter with a view to putting it right at a later stage. It would be an anomalous position if the decisions of the Commissioner under the ordinary income tax law could be subject to appeal and yet his decisions which he may give under the provincial income tax law on the question whether income is earned in the province or not, would not be subject to appeal. I am not going to worry the Minister with a further amendment if he will give his assurance that he will consider this point.

I take it the provincial authorities when they draft their income tax legislation will see to these things. We are blocking the thing if we circumscribe it too much, but we will consider this matter at a later stage

If the Minister puts the section in as it now stands, then I would just like to point out that any provincial ordinance which gives the right of appeal from the decision of the Commissioner would be ultra vires. The Minister says he will consider the point, so I will not press it now.

Then here I think we must also delete the letter “C” in line 4 on page 10. I move—

With regard to the amendment “B”, the Minister is levying 1s. in the £ on dividends. I would suggest to the Minister that the maximum amount that should be levied is 9d. His intention is to levy an amount equivalent to 20 per cent. of the tax paid to the Union Government. Sixpence on the taxable income, which is suggested at the beginning of the paragraph, is 20 per cent. That is perfectly right, but 1s. on the dividends is much more than 20 per cent. I pointed out the other day that companies on an average pay roughly two-thirds of their profits in dividends. On looking through a large number of companies—I am taking this from the Economist of the last three quarters—I see the dividends paid are, roughly, from 70 to 79 per cent., and therefore if you charge 1s. in the £ on dividends, you will be charging a great deal more than the equivalent of 6d. in the £ on taxable income, that is, you will be charging a great deal more to these companies than 20 per cent. of their Union tax. I think 9d. should be the amount, which would then bring the dividend tax nearer to the equivalent of the tax on the taxable income. I would move that the amount be 9d.

I hope the hon. member will not press this. One shilling is at present levied in the Transvaal on the dividends of holding companies, and that is why we preserve the revenue they are getting at present.

I do not see why an inequity should be continued because one province has decided to levy 1s. We are now laying down provisions for the future, and it seems to me entirely inequitable that a company should be charged 30 per cent., which it roughly amounts to, on its taxable income; while the ordinary individual only pays 20 per cent. To a great extent investors in limited liability companies are people of small means who, under ordinary circumstances, would pay no income tax at all in many instances, and it seems unfair to levy a tax of 30 per cent. of the amount they pay in income tax to the Union Government, while the ordinary person, however well to do he may be, can only be charged 20 per cent. I do urge the Minister to consider this.

The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) is quite right. It is not fair to charge 6d. on the ordinary profits and 1s. on the dividends, on the supposition, I presume, that the dividends only amount to half what the profits are. As a matter of fact, I understand they are generally 70 per cent. or 75 per cent. of the profits made. Therefore, about 9d. would meet the case. It is a pity that the Minister is tied up as he is.

It may be quite right, but I want the House to realize the position. We are tied up. It is one of the essential conditions of the whole settlement that I must preserve to the Transvaal the revenue they are getting now, and that is why there is this limit.

When the Minister went to Durban and came to this settlement, he was discussing with the Administrators a tax of 1s. 6d. in the £ on their taxable income, and a dividends tax. Now he has altered that arrangement to 2s. 6d. in the £ on their taxable income, so he is really giving the provinces more than they anticipated, that is, 20 per cent. on 2s. 6d. in the £, instead of 20 per cent. of 1s. 6d. in the £. As a matter of fact the provinces are coming off remarkably well in the matter. I can assure the hon. Minister that he is not in any way treating the provinces badly. He is carrying out the full intent of his agreement by giving the amount I suggest. When he was discussing the matter with them in Durban he said—

And now he is giving them 20 per cent. of 2s. 6d. in the £. I do not think the Minister need have any qualms of conscience that he is not playing the game with the provinces. They have come off remarkably well in his suggested alteration of the basis of the income tax. Now that the dividend tax is being done away with, the right way to deal with the whole thing is to take the taxing of dividends away from the provinces, just as we propose deleting it from our own legislation, and then it would be perfectly right, in order to get their 20 per cent. of the income tax paid by the companies, that they should be allowed to charge up to 6d. in the £. I have no objection to 6d., but when it comes to charging the companies 1s. in the £ on dividends, I feel the Minister is not doing right to the companies and far exceeding the amounts which the provincial councils anticipated they would get from this source.

The trouble with the Minister is that he finds a tax existed in a particular province which he really admits goes beyond the general enabling power which he would like to give; but because of that one tax, he so words the wording of his enabling powers as to allow the other three provinces to follow the bad example set by the one province. Take licences in item 12 of the schedule. He told us the other night that because that tax does exist in the Cape, and he cannot disturb the financial equilibrium of that province by abolishing that tax, he finds it necessary to put this power in. The Minister would have avoided a lot of trouble if he had made it plain in the drafting of the Bill that the power was to exist only to enable the one province to retain the tax. Take the tax he speaks of which was passed in the Transvaal two or three years ago. In its anxiety to get at the big financial houses the provincial council passed the companies tax which made a special hit at what they call financial companies—the big mining groups whose income is principally derived from the dividends drawn from their subsidiary companies. They passed that tax, and the Minister says he must leave it standing in order not to disturb the revenues of the Transvaal province. Well and good; but why use the existence of that tax, and the limits to which it goes, to grant enabling powers to the other three provinces? If the Minister had so drafted this Bill that, in one or two special cases where there is an existing tax which he thinks goes too far but must itself be preserved, it would be preserved, but at the same time had made it plain that the other provinces may not go so far, the trouble would have been avoided. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) is quite right. Why should you give power to the provinces to impose an extra tax on dividends of companies beyond the power you give in the case of individuals? Why should you make it appear to investors that if you put money into a company, you are holding out your head to be hit? The Minister has been most patient throughout this discussion, and I do not wish to drag the discussion out to any great length, and therefore I am going to leave it at this: Will the Minister promise to say whether the Bill cannot be amended at the report stage, to stabilize and utilize the existing tax in the Transvaal on companies, but to make it plain that, as regards a future tax on companies—whether in the Transvaal or in the other provinces—he will limit the amount so as to correspond with the 20 per cent. of the tax on individuals?

I would like to support the appeal made to the Minister of Finance to reconsider the clause. I don’t want anything taken away from the Transvaal, but in the future companies should not be penalized. The other day I met a gentleman who has spent several months in this country on behalf of an influential syndicate in England, looking round for investments. He was considerably surprised to find that the taxation on companies was much heavier than on individuals. There is no doubt that many people prefer to invest their money in limited liability companies, rather than to put their money in mortgage bonds or other investments. It is worth considering whether we should not induce people to invest their money here through limited liability companies.

It is obviously impossible to do as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) suggests. That is what I have been trying to avoid all along. Surely you must leave some discretion to these people who have the right of taxation. I don’t propose to take away all those rights. Where you have a high limit it is not necessary for every province to go to that high limit, but you cannot have one schedule for one province and another schedule for another province.

I would like to put it in another way to the Minister. As the matter stands under his suggestion, a company would pay 2s. 6d. in the £ on its taxable income to the Union, and from 9d. to 10d. in the £ to the province, but an individual with a maximum income of £24,000 would pay 2s. in the £ plus 20 per cent., that is 2s. 5d., in normal tax. Thus a man with an income of from £24,000 to £50,000 a year would pay a total normal tax of 2s. 5d. in the £, while a company consisting of a large number of people would pay 3s. 4d. in the £ normal tax. This seems to me to be inequitable, and I think it is grossly unfair.

A company does not pay supertax.

But each individual who receives an income from companies pays super-tax if he has more than £2,500 a year.

The Minister promised to meet us with regard to the importers’ licence, and to fix it as it is in the Cape. I will move—

I will move, as an amendment to the new paragraph (b) proposed by the Minister of Finance—

I promised that I would agree to that limitation, but I propose doing so at another stage. I don’t think we can very well do it now. At another stage I will see that the necessary provision is made.

Very well, I will withdraw it.

The second part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Blackwell to the new paragraph (a) proposed by the Minister of Finance was withdrawn.

The remaining amendments proposed by Mr. Blackwell and the amendments proposed by the Minister of Finance put and agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Stuttaford put and negatived.

Before you put the clause, Mr. Chairman, may I point out to the Minister that, having accepted the distinction between “company” and “persons other than a company” for the purposes of this section, he will have to make a similar amendment in items 8 and 9 of the schedule? That could be done at a later stage, of course.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I should like a little explanation from the Minister with regard to this rather strange clause. It says—

What is peculiar about this also is that it is laid down that the provision of this sub-section shall be—

This is to meet the case of the township of Warmbaths in the Transvaal. It is a Government township, the administration of which has been transferred to the province, and when erven are sold we pay over to the province the proceeds, so that they shall be applied for the administration and development of the township. The Auditor-General has raised difficulties, and this sub-section will put the matter on a proper footing. The second sub-section, I may say, deals with certain townships in Natal, where erven are sold, and we will pay over the proceeds for the benefit of the townships.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I have an amendment on the notice-paper which I am hoping the Minister will accept. It is as follows—

I may say that I ventured to put this on the notice-paper because I have received a copy of a telegram which has been despatched by the Natal Administrator to the Minister. I understand the Minister will subsequently move an amendment containing a new clause 14, which provides as follows—

In regard to that amendment of the Minister, I do not think there can be the least objection, but I want to urge the following reasons why my amendment should also be accepted. It is clear from the telegram which the Minister has received that not only the municipalities but also the executive committee and the provincial council of Natal are all agreed that they can come to some understanding, and they have wired to the Minister asking him to be good enough to receive a deputation representing those bodies at an early date. The provincial council is sitting at present, and it is quite impossible for them to come to Cape Town now. If my amendment is adopted, it means that the Minister will practically have it in his own hands, after seeing the deputation whether to proclaim these two sections of the Act, that is to say whether he will let this Act take effect and thereby take away the revenues from the towns and give them to the province. On the other hand, he may be convinced—I hope, possibly, he will be convinced—that some other solution may be found, and in that case he will leave it to the province to settle their own differences. I do not want to argue the whole thing over again, but I would like to say that I think everybody, including the Minister, agreed that this was a matter which might very well be left to the province to settle, and I am doing this with the sole object of allowing the province to come to the Minister and endeavour to find a solution. If they cannot, then the Minister simply proclaims paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 12 will take effect from a certain date. If my amendment is carried, then I would move a few words into section 13, simply saying that that section will be subject to the provisions of section 12. It may seem unusual to hold up the two clauses for some time. As a rule, when an Act of Parliament is gazetted it comes into force at once, but, as the Minister knows, we often pass Acts of Parliament such as the Scab Act and the Fencing Act, the latter of which left it to each district to agree to enforce its provisions within its own boundaries. In this particular matter the rest of the Union is not concerned, but it is a vital matter, as far as the provincial council and municipalities of Natal are concerned, and I hope, when they come together and meet the Minister, they will find a solution to the difficulty. If not, if the Minister still finds he is bound by the understanding that he came to with the provincial executive, he simply proclaims that these provisions in regard to licences shall take effect. I do not seek to tie the Minister’s hands at all; I simply ask him to hold up the matter until he sees the deputation and, if he does that, he will please everybody concerned.

I have no objection to the interested parties in Natal coming to some solution of this question. That I have indicated from the very start. I cannot, however, agree to re-open the matter as far as I am concerned. The question of these licence-moneys has been threshed out on the floor of this House and a decision has been taken. I have no objection to the proposal of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). It will in any case take some time before this change can come into force. I am quite prepared to accept the amendment, and I leave it to the interested parties to try and find a solution in the meantime, but it cannot be on the understanding that I am going to re-open the whole thing and discuss the whole question of policy with them. From the start I have had no intention of interfering with the decision of the provincial council in this matter. I have no objection to accepting the hon. member’s amendment.

I think we Natal members are indebted to the Minister for having met us so far in connection with the matter which we have been discussing for some time, and, though his proposals will not meet the wishes of the municipalities in Natal to the extent that they desire, still it gives them an opportunity of re-discussing the matter and coming to some arrangement with the provincial council. I hope they will manage to do it successfully. Because, as the Minister says, what the municipalities want if they do not get these licences is to get something else in their place. The provincial council executive also wants to get something else in their place to make up deficiencies. We understood from the Minister that this arrangement that was come to in Durban was a mutual arrangement between the executive and the municipalities, and I understood that he considered he was bound to carry out that arrangement under this Bill. There seem to be two points of view, however, because I see that one of the members of the Natal executive made a statement recently which does not exactly correspond with the Minister’s statement. On May 13th, Mr. Russell, speaking in the Budget debate of the Natal Provincial Council, said he would like to illustrate the real position of affairs. As a matter of fact he said the Natal subsidy from the Union Government for the year just ended totalled £573.000 plus £30.000 in lieu of trading licences. The new arrangement would mean that Natal would lose about £100,000 annually, while the Orange Free State would get £100.000 more. The Transvaal would get another £100.000. In October last the Union Government had intimated that Natal’s policy with regard to licence revenue should be amended, and that the provincial council should have this money. The Natal executive replied that it could not recommend the provincial council to adopt such a policy, and the Minister said that he would do it himself, and he had done it. Mr. Russell said that he and the members of the executive emphasized to the Minister that compensation must be found for the municipality, who had been collecting such revenue since 1851. The Minister said why should there be compensation, and offered to take over the police. The Minister had made up his mind and was adamant. The municipalities were never consulted in this matter, and it is very unfair that they should suffer under this arrangement. I hope the Minister will still consider there is room for repentance and will do what he can to help the municipalities and the provincial councils. If he will not do that, we are prepared to accept the amendment, and let them come to some arrangement between themselves. In the meantime, I hope the Minister will postpone action and accord the interview with him asked for by representatives of the provincial council and the Durban municipality.

I rise to add my voice to those of my colleagues who protested so vigorously during the debate on the second reading of this Bill against the unfair action of the Minister in respect to his treatment of Natal. I was unfortunately absent from that debate owing to my having been called back to Natal. To have adopted a policy towards the provincial council of Natal which has resulted in a great loss to its finances, and to have offered to recoup them under this clause at the expense of the boroughs and local boards without giving the latter any warning of his intention is a very wrong and a very unfair line for the Minister to adopt. To say that this has created a very strong hostile feeling throughout Natal is not to overstate the case. The Minister, no doubt appreciating the injustice of his action, now says that he is willing to accept the motion of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), but this only means that the provincial council and the munipical authorities must settle the matter between them. It is most unlikely that the provincial executive will give up what the Minister has promised them, and it is also most improbable that the municipal representations will give away moneys which they have enjoyed for a period of over 70 years. The object of the Minister is no doubt to create discord where hitherto the greatest harmony has always existed. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) has indicated the differential treatment meted out to Natal in comparison with the other provinces to their profit and to our loss, a differentiation of treatment which has exhausted the patience of the people of Natal. In this particular instance the income from these licences was allotted to the municipalities of Natal by legislation as far back as 1854, and confirmed in subsequent legislation, but this is not the only point. The chief point is that when Natal was invited to come into Union, the boroughs enjoyed these licences, and there was no hint that they would be confiscated—all their loans were raised with this knowledge and conviction that these licence moneys would remain the property of the boroughs. Now the apple of discord is thrown suddenly into Natal and the occasion utilized for a good deal of adverse criticism of the provincial council system in general. And in this connection we have heard a good deal from all parts of the House of doing away with these councils. Now it has got to be remembered that it was a primary condition insisted upon by the representatives of Natal at the convention, that in the absence of federal form of Government, which Natal demanded, these provincial councils would be established, and if they had not been granted Natal would have withdrawn from the conference. It therefore follows, as a matter of course, and it may as well be clearly stated now, that so long as Natal demands to retain her provincial council, so long shall that body remain. It is not for any other province or this House to decide the matter without a gross violation of the contract. The decision lies with Natal and Natal alone. These figures will show what the loss of revenue will be to a number of towns. In Pietermaritzburg the amount lost will be £5,673, necessitating an increased rate of .28d.; Durban £37,400, and a rate of ½d.; Dundee £900, and a rate of ½d.; Newcastle £771, and ⅝d. rate; Vryheid £1,000, and ½d. rate; Ladysmith £1,725, and 9/16d. rate; Greytown £750, and ¾d. rate; Weenen £115, and ¼d. rate; Utrecht £271, and 7/16d. rate; Verulam £257. and ¾d. rate; South Barrow £200, and §d. rate; Stanger £208, and ¾d. rate; Paulpietersburg £132, and 5/16d. rate; South Shepstone £255, and 9/16d. rate; Eshowe £216, and ½d. rate; Harding £150, and ¼d. rate; Mooi River £368, and ¾d. rate; Howick £130, and ¾d. rate; Richmond £170, and ⅜d. rate. The smaller places will feel it just as much as the larger ones, and in some instances perhaps even more. All this income is to be taken away from the municipal authorities and without the slightest warning and handed over to the provincial council to make up the loss in its income. There is apparently a feeling in Government circles that Natal is the most long-suffering community in the world, a community which will put up with any amount of injustice, so that her pleadings for fair play may be safely ignored. I think, however, a limit to her endurance is rapidly coming. It is but folly to close one’s ears to the rumbling of the storm, so I suggest to the Minister not only that he should accept this amendment and postpone the application of this clause, but that he should seriously consider before it is too late if he intends to rob the municipalities, that some adequate compensation be awarded them. I use the word “rob” advisedly, as to take away from anyone property by force, and without his consent, is robbery. If the Government are determined to take this money away from the municipalities and townships and award it to the provincial executive, some adequate compensation should be given. I desire to lodge my most emphatic protest at the whole policy which is being followed in this connection, and particularly the method in which it is being carried out.

I am sorry that this discussion has been so protracted, but I should like to ask the Minister whether it is true that the provincial council did not ask that they should have this tax handed over to them, as the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) stated was disclosed in the Budget debate in the Natal Council. It is true that in the Baxter report, the handing over of this source of revenue to the provinces was recommended; but it has got to be emphasized that on the Baxter commission Natal was not even represented. At the recent conference in Durban, the municipalities were never consulted, and they had no chance of laying their case before the Minister or the province. There is no doubt that an act of injustice is being done. In 1854 the rights were given to the municipalities, which were confirmed in 1860, and again in 1862, and in 1872 these revenues were entrenched to the municipal councils. I think the law of 1872 will have to be repealed before the taking over of these revenues can be permitted. The Minister is reported to have said that probably the municipalities had enjoyed these revenues too long. That is not the point. Natal came into the Union, and the Financial Relations Commission recognized that position, and entrenched it then by the Act of 1913. You are going to do away with it now, and there is also the position of the police in Pietermaritzburg and Durban, the only two towns in the Union that maintain their own police. The Minister said that was a liability he would be prepared to shoulder, but there is a good deal of sentiment about it. Those towns want to retain their police, but if taken over by Union Government the rights of the men of that service should be generously recognized. I protest against this proposal; it is most unjust, and I hope that when the Minister does meet these gentlemen in conference—representatives of the provincial council and the municipalities—they will be able to come to such an arrangement that these revenues will be retained by the municipalities and townships of Natal.

I beg to move an amendment—

I do not want to go into the merits of this case. We had a full discussion on the second reading debate, but in reply to the hon. member for Pietermartizburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien), and also to the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson), I would say that when we discussed the whole question of financial relations in Durban, I pointed out to our friends in Natal that the special contribution from the Union exchequer to Natal could no longer be justified. Apart from the £100,000 Natal was getting a special contribution from the Union exchequer, and had been getting it for nearly 12 years, because the province was not in receipt of those particular licences. I said this would have to cease. It is not payable to any other province. I did not expect them to consent; but that decision was the policy of the Government. Then Natal, quite justly, pointed out that as they were not to get this special contribution, they should have the licences, and I agreed that they should have the licences as is done in all other provinces. That was the settlement to which all the delegates agreed. The minutes of the conference are available, if any hon. member wishes to refer to them.

They did not get a chance to put up their case.

After I informed them that they would not get their special contribution, they were glad to get the licences. If they do not want the licences, it is a matter between them and the municipalities. They want a provincial council—popular government—and they must be prepared to abide by the decision of the council. If the council is prepared to hand back these revenues and get their revenue in some other way from Natal. I have no objection. The only thing the Treasury is concerned with is the special contribution which we are not prepared to continue and we are not prepared to discuss the question of compensation for that.

I hope the Minister will receive the deputation and put his case before them, so that they may understand the matter fully. This question of the revenues in Natal affects the securities.

I have already replied to the telegram which I have received to the effect that I can see no good purpose will be served by discussing this question as I cannot reopen the question of compensation. I am always prepared to meet any deputation, and I will see them, but not on the basis of reopening the question of compensation. If they think they can carry the matter further, they can see me, but I must tell them beforehand that the Government has decided, and I think I can say Parliament has decided, against Natal on this question.

I should like the Minister to consider this particular point. I was a member of the deputation of members of the Legislative Assembly and of the Provincial Council from Natal who waited on the late Government when the question of payment of the subsidy of £30,000 was agreed to. It savours of a breach of faith to discontinue these payments before the year 1927, when they were part of a compromise arrived at with the provincial councils, the representatives of which waited on the late Minister of Finance, who then said that the continuation of these payments till 1927 was to be considered a final liquidation of the responsibilities of the Union Government under that heading. Immediately after Union the first Financial Relations Commission—a most impartial body—came to the conclusion that compensation should be paid if the licence fees were to be taken from the Natal municipalities. The commission was presided over by an officer of the Imperial service, Natal was represented on the Commission, and both the minority and majority reports of the commission affirmed the principle that compensation should be paid. That was at a time when the “National Convention Spirit” was a factor. It is only now when we are getting further away from the consummation of Union that we begin to repudiate these arrangements. I hope the Minister will consider his future responsibility towards the subject of local government generally, for in taking away these licence fees from the municipalities he is going against the practice and development of local government in every civilized country in the world. In the leading cities in Europe and in America and the Dominions the licence fees accrue to the municipalities. Bound up with the question of licences is that of municipal police and in every country where the development of local government is proceeding on progressive lines the police are controlled by the city, but the Minister under stress of financing the provinces is going right against this valued principle of local government. There was great reluctance on the part of the villages in Natal to go in for any form of local government, but the Administrator of Natal promised them that the fees from licences would be their revenue. The Minister of Finance, however, is taking action to-day which savours of a gross breach of faith to local authorities and the Natal provincial council. The latter’s right to a subsidy of £30,000 was entrenched in the Act of 1922, but now we propose to over-ride it. The Minister is invading the sphere of the provincial councils and seems to be super-imposing his authority on them. This change that is now proposed to be brought about will be against the interests of local government in Natal and the development of local government throughout the Union. The late Minister of Justice was convinced that it would be better for the larger towns to have the control of their own police, and here we are engaged in neutralizing entirely whatever has been done in that direction. I hope the Minister will be very slow in putting this sction into force, even if he insists upon passing it into law.

One of the features of this debate has been the extraordinary silence of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. He represents one of the richest towns in Natal and one of the constituencies which are going to be most affected by the proposed change. The time for silence has gone—let him get up and declare himself. Is he content to see Natal clubbed in the way it is being clubbed by the Treasury? Is the Minister for us or against us? The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs knows how unfairly Natal has been treated and that the licences rightly belong to the municipalities, and that the Minister of Finance has explained that he realizes that he has been rash and that the case for the municipalities has been a good one. Does the Minister realize that there will be a difficulty in the future in obtaining candidates to stand for Natal borough councils, because of the increased rates that will have to be imposed as the result of the borough councils losing the revenue hitherto derived from licences? It is nothing more or less than highway robbery. The Minister of Finance has shown weakness and rashness in agreeing to the proposals of the Natal Provincial Council. I hope the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) will not remain silent, but I believe he is here to help to fight. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs should let us know where he stands.

The reason I have been silent is because there has been so much talking by other people, unnecessary talking, that I thought the less I said the quicker we should get on with the business. If the hon. member challenges me to know where I stand, I have no hesitation in responding to the challenge, and to say that I stand entirely behind the Minister in support of this clause, for the reason that Natal itself can decide whether the province or the municipalities shall have the licence fees. Further, it is unfair of the members belonging to the South African party to attack the Minister in this matter when he is only acting in accordance with the express wishes of the Natal Provincial Council.

Are you in favour of taking the licences away from the Natal municipalities?

Yes, and the Natal municipalities can recover them from the province if the provincial council likes to give them these licences. The majority of the members of the provincial council come from the towns in Natal. I cannot believe the provincial council of Natal composed of representatives from the towns and municipalities is going to be allowed to keep the licences unless they think it is a right thing to do. Natal has the power to settle the matter entirely on its own, and why should Natal not be brought into line? The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) talks about America and France and other parts of the world, but we are not legislating for France and America, but for South Africa. We are bringing Natal into line with the other three provinces. If Natal likes to see the licences coming to the municipalities there is nothing to stop Natal from doing it. The Minister has said that if the Natal executive asked him to hand them over to the municipalities he would take out the clause.

They have replied, objecting.

The Minister has received a telegram from the responsible provincial authority in Natal saying that he must stand by the clause.

They want to meet him and discuss it.

There is nothing in this attack. We are not injuring Natal one little bit, but the hon. members want to make a little party politics out of it when they know full well the Minister is acting in accordance with the wishes of the Natal provincial council as expressed through its executive.

Do you approve the Natal municipalities being ignored without a hearing?

No, it is a matter for Natal to decide itself. The Minister does not decide it. The Bill does not decide it, but it brings Natal into line with the other provinces. The hon. member says that they have had this since 1854. Well, we have had too many old-fashioned things, and it is time we dug them out. Is he satisfied now where I stand? Can I be more emphatic.

You are against Natal.

And I represent Natal. And I shall continue to represent Natal long after the hon. member does.

I thought I heard the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) interject during the Minister’s speech—

Well, I have just been to Durban and have told them, and at both meetings the unanimous vote of confidence in the Pact Government was carried. There were more than 400 people present. The hon. members for both Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) and (South) (Mr. O’Brien), suggested that under this Bill the provincial councils were being given power to take away the licences from the municipalities of Natal, but they have already got that power, and any time could have taken the licences away, but the members of the executive were frightened to do it.

They want the Minister to help them.

Every one of the four executive members of the Provincial Council of Natal is a member of the South African party. It is one of the most ludicrous things possible to see one branch of the South African party getting up here and opposing what another branch of the South African party are anxious to do. I would prefer the licences to remain with municipalities, and I resent the action of the provincial council executive in scheming to get the things taken away from the municipalities. The Natal provincial council executive is a branch of the South African party, and is scheming to bluff the Minister into taking the licences away from the municipalities and other members of the same party instead of reproving their colleagues in their own province are trying to make party capital out of it. I don’t think there is any answer to that.

I don’t think it is worth any answer.

It is a question for the executive of Natal, and not only is that executive council composed of South African party men but the provincial council itself has a clear majority of South African party men, and if the towns like to-morrow in a sitting of the provincial council they could pass a resolution not to take these licences, and the licences would go back to the towns. The hon. members here have only got to instruct their Natal branch not to do it and it will not be done.

I take exception to the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs.

It will be noted.

Very well. I want to say that I take exception to the Minister’s statement that this discussion is entirely for party purposes. He knows as well as I do that we have been inundated with telegrams and literature from the municipalities of Natal, asking us to take exception to these licences being put into the hands of the provincial council. As a member for Durban it was up to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to help this side, which is trying to do its duty, rather than remain in a position of isolation. I hope the people of Durban will realize that, when the Durban members were putting up a fight in the interests of their own municipality, they were not supported by the Labour side.

Why don’t you fight the Natal Provincial Council?

It is an extraordinary thing that we can never discuss a matter on its merits in this House, without having party politics introduced. This is a question which can surely be discussed on its merits, free from any party feeling. As far as Natal is concerned it is a matter of £30,000 which the municipalities have hitherto been receiving. The Minister of Finance said the other day that Natal had been very favourably treated so far as this question of licence was concerned in comparison with other provinces of the Union. The provinces have been paid a subsidy on the £ for £ basis, and if the Natal Province had received these revenues the Union taxpayer would have had to pay so much more by reason of the subsidy. The mere fact that the basis of subsidy has been changed by the Minister is no reason why Natal should get less than it has been getting in the past, that is to say, why it should now take money from the municipalities which in the past, had it done so, would have doubled its income. If Natal in the past had received these revenues from the municipalities they would have got an additional £30,000 from their own taxation, and the Union Government would have had to pay another £30,000. Is that not correct?

No, certainly not. Try again.

Anyway that is as I see it. I understood that on the revenues which were raised by Natal for provincial purposes the Union paid a subsidy of £ for £. The Union Government would still be paying that £30,000 even if the provincial council got the licence fees from the municipalities.

I think it is a great pity that the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) should always drag in party politics whenever a matter concerning Natal is discussed in this House. It is time that he desisted from always dragging in party politics in matters of this sort. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has stated that the municipalities have a majority in the provincial council of Natal. That statement is not correct. There are 25 members in the council, of whom 6 represent Durban, 4 represent Pietermaritzburg, and the rest represent the rural areas.

Seven in Durban.

Very well, we will add on one to Durban.

Then you have Dundee, Newcastle, Ladysmith, etc.

In these towns the rural vote outnumbers the municipal vote. In 1913 the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs voted for the £30,000 being paid to the Natal Provincial Council rather than that the licences should be taken away from the municipalities. He recognized at that time that it was just and fair that these licences which the municipalities had should remain in their hands. To-day he is in favour of not only taking away the £30,000 but also the rights which these municipalities have enjoyed since 1851. I cannot understand his attitude. From the outset of this debate I have argued that this is a matter which should have been decided in Natal by the provincial council and the municipalities, and that it is not for this House to vote away the vested rights of the municipalities. Unfortunately the Minister of Finance would not accept my proposal.

I feel that very little can be advanced against the bringing of one province into line with the other provinces in this regard, but at the same time I join issues with others who have contended that the municipalities in Natal should have been consulted before this change was made. I think that that would have simplified the position considerably. Take the two larger municipalities of Durban and Pietermaritzburg. They are faced with the choice of two evils. They will either have to raise the rates paid by burgesses or ask the Government to take over the policing of their towns. I have not heard the Minister of Finance say anything whatsoever as to what will be done in the event of Durban of Pietermaritzburg asking the Government to take over the police force of those two towns.

He has offered to do that.

The Minister of Finance said on the second reading of this measure that the provincial council could return the licence money to the municipalities, if they liked. It is not at all likely that the provincial council, once they have got hold of this revenue—and they are badly in need of revenue—will return it to the municipalities. I understand that negotiations have already been opened with the Government in regard to the taking over of the police force in Pietermaritzburg. I would like the Minister to inform the House what would be the position in the event of Durban and Pietermaritzburg desiring the Government to take over the policing of these two large towns.

I have already spoken at considerable length on this subject, but I do want to say a few words in regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). The position so far as Natal is concerned, is that Natal contends that the executive committee of the provincial council of Natal had no mandate from Natal to barter away the rights of local authorities as they did at the Provincial Finance Conference at Durban. That being so I think the amendment should be accepted by the Minister, and effect should not be given to these two clauses of the Bill, Clause 12 (1) and (2) until this proposed deputation representative of both the provincial council and the municipal authorities have placed their respective views before the Minister. For that reason I do hope the Minister will delay giving effect to the two clauses in question until the deputation has interviewed him.

Yesterday we spent seven hours over the question of £12,000 for a private school.

We had a perfect right to.

Well, for seven hours the Opposition tried to find a way to give £12,000 out of public revenue to the South African College. They were justified in so far as that school has a wonderful record, and I can understand the pride with which Cape Town looks upon it. To that extent I can sympathize with them. I want to draw the attention of Natal members, who are taking up the time now, to the fact that provincial subsidies are calculated on the basis of contribution only for education. There is a special bonus to Natal and the Orange Free State in addition of £75,000, and yet Natal members are trying to make a grievance over the mere question as to which of two bodies in Natal shall have the handling of certain licence money. Let them follow the example set by members of the Transvaal. Our subsidy is calculated on a per capita contribution exactly the same as Natal, the Free State and the Cape. Yet what are we putting up with, and saying nothing about? Because we dared to put an employers tax on the mines, £180,000 is deducted from the subsidy for education which we should justly get in the Transvaal. Do you hear Transvaal members talk for hours about this injustice? No. They have taken it silently as a matter of course.

That point has already been discussed and passed.

Yes, I am only introducing it as an example for the purpose of trying to get Natal members to see that they should be satisfied. Natal and Orange Free State have all they are entitled to plus a special grant, whilst the Cape has now about £600,000 more than the Transvaal, after deducting the miners tax, though the Union draws a very large revenue from the latter province. Still we are silent about it.

There is one point which I think the Minister has not given sufficient consideration to. He comes before the House and states that he is merely carrying out an honourable agreement with the provincial council; but he omitted to say that they made a stipulation which they have never departed from that provision for compensation in respect of these licences should continue; it should not be interfered with. That seems to me reasonable when we look at the provisions of section 5 of Act 5 of 1922, which guarantee a subsidy of £30,000 in respect of licence fees to the Natal provincial council until April, 1927. The Minister has been silent on this point. He has emphasized the fact that successive commissions have recommended doing away with these licences in Natal, but he has never mentioned the fact that compensation was recommended by two of these commissions, and that the principle was embodied in the Acts of 1913 and 1922. I was present when the late Minister of Finance assured the provincial council of Natal that he would allow the subsidy until 1927, but it was to be a final liquidation of the responsibilities of the Union Government under that head. I do think the Minister is going much further than the necessities of the case demand. If the Minister will pardon my saying so, he is going back on that honourable arrangement entered into with the Natal provincial council, because they made the stipulation that there should be no alteration in regard to the compensation subsidy. They have maintained throughout, and they have stated publicly, and in their telegram to the Minister yesterday, that that was their stipulation, which they have never once departed from.

I do not know what the hon. member means by stipulation. If he means it was stipulated there should be compensation and that I agreed, then I emphatically deny it. I emphatically deny that there was any understanding that the municipalities were to be compensated. There might have been an argument, but from the first I refused to entertain the idea of compensation. He is quite right when he says the act lays it down that the grant should cease after five years. Now it is ceasing a little earlier because I have made a new arrangement with Natal, under which they are getting a very much increased subsidy.

The Administrator said in a public speech that it meant £100,000 less.

Of course it may be, but certainly it is as much as they are entitled to. The hon. member cannot point to a single case where Natal is put in a worse position than the other provinces. I have even departed from the recommendation of the Baxter commission, of £14 per pupil, and I am giving Natal the maximum subsidy. That is some indication of the way we have treated her. She is still to get £75,000, whereas she was getting £100,000. I do not see what grievance Natal has.

The amendments were put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New Clause 13,

I am desirous of moving an amendment, the effect of which will be to suspend the operation of the entire clause until an ordinance shall have been enacted by the Natal Provincial Council. Should this amendment come in here or at a later stage, when the Minister’s amendment for the introduction of a new Clause 14 is reached—

I am unable to put this proposed new clause as it is inconsistent with the amendment proposed by Sir Thomas Watt, which was agreed to on Clause 12.

On Clause 13,

I move—

I have no objection to this amendment, but I want to suggest to the Minister that we should put a few words in at the beginning of Clause 13, just to save the position which has been established by the amendment to Clause 12. I move—

We have already made a certain provision that Clause 12 may be held up till the proclamation is issued.

This section is not affected by the previous section.

There is a definite provision that these licences shall be handed over to the province.

You could say “subject to sub-section (1) of section 12.” I think he will find that has to be provided for under the terms of an Act still to be passed by Parliament. Unless that is passed this does not apply at all. I don’t think he need move the amendment here.

Very well, I don’t press it here.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of Finance was agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New Clause 14,

I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I would like to ask the meaning of this.

Difficulties have arisen because these hospitals are provincial institutions and the universities are not provincial institutions, at any rate, difficulties have occurred in the Medical Hospital at Johannesburg.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I strongly object to this clause, especially the first part, sub-section (1). I find this is a particular clause which places the control of teachers’ salaries in the hands of the Union Government or the Public Service Commission. There is one thing which has been very much stressed, and that is that there should be uniformity in teachers’ salaries. My hon. friend has departed from the sound principles which have been pressed for by the provinces themselves. The Baxter report says that the crucial matter in regard to teachers’ salaries is uniformity. The administrators and heads of departments of education have informed the commission that such uniformity in their opinion is most desirable. They have admitted it can only be secured by action of the Union Government. Why does not my hon. friend leave it alone, now they have got what they want. It is a matter of party politics? In my view and in the view of the administrators it is for the benefit of the provinces. There has been a certain amount of competition in the provinces for the best teachers, and the result was salaries have been raised, and now we reproduce the old state of affairs. This is a pity, a great pity. We should maintain what was agreed to twelve months ago, as the provinces at bottom desired it.

The whole question has been discussed at great length in the House, and I hope the committee will not pursue the subject at this stage. I think he is wrong in saying we have reached the happy stage of uniformity. We passed an Act, but the previous Government, of which he was a member, did not carry it out.

We didn’t get the time.

When the teachers objected they didn’t carry it out. The Government is not prepared to take the responsibility from the provincial council. It is a provincial matter, and we say let them deal with it. We had a discussion in the House, and, notwithstanding that my hon. friend got his Act, it was never carried into effect.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I want to strongly object to this. What is the meaning of sub-section (a)—

That is a loose way of dealing with things, the loosest way I have ever seen. I think the words after the words “urban settlements” must come out.

There should be some authority.

It must be someone better than the Administrator.

I think it is the essence of the whole clause. It is in view of areas around a town, and it is there exactly where the evil lies at present. These areas are sold out in plots, and they don’t make provision at all for the laying-out of streets or of open spaces, or of anything that has to do with public utility at all, and it is to meet that case that the clause is being drafted.

I can understand that, but when they have decided to lay out it is for the authority to come along and not to say “or deemed by the Administrator.”

I am sorry I cannot agree with my hon. friend the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I think the Minister of the Interior has pointed out the real difficulty. In areas likely to be used for urban settlement at any time, it must be defined in the early stages so that proper provision can be made for their lay-out. One part of the clause I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to is sub-section (d) “reservation of land for local government or other public purposes in any approved or varied scheme of town planning.” I think that is very wise. I move—

Thus in an area of say 500 acres, the total of that could be taken without payment would be 5 acres. Otherwise we might have the position of a local body demanding two acres of a very small area, which were not required for school purposes there, and the local authority might maintain that it has a right to sell the land and use the proceeds for educational purposes elsewhere. Unless we are very careful we may be placing powers in the hands of the provincial councils which are of far too wide a nature.

I think it is very inadvisable to bind the hands of municipalities and divisional councils. It is impossible for a House like this to judge of the future requirements of different municipalities. After all there is a check on these municipalities with regard to the expropriation of ground under this clause. They are responsible to the ratepayers, and I think that is as good a check on a municipality as one could wish. Therefore I hope the amendment will not be accepted.

I am unable to agree with the Minister, for to say that a local authority may make a demand for ground of unlimited extent is to confer on it the power of expropriation. I do not think the term reservation would disentitle the Government to claim title to the ground. It would probably be found that the provincial councils would give power to demand title, and once they have got that the local authority could dispose of the land and utilize the proceeds for some other local Government purpose elsewhere. Has the Minister taken sufficient power in regard to town-planning? The power to regulate town-planning, and even to make it retrospective, is a wise one. We can find instances in the Cape Peninsula where, had a wise system of town-planning been in force, the whole amenities of the locality would have been immensely improved. Where you have, as in Cape Town, large areas adjoining the municipal boundary, it is impossible for the municipality to render proper sanitary services, because the people are too poor to pay for them, nor can the owners of the ground be held responsible. I am speaking of areas on the Cape Flats beyond Rondebosch, where you have enteric and other diseases rampant, this being very largely due to the fact that there are no means of disposing of the sewage. There is no local power to place that burden on the owners, or to compel owners to develop their estates in sections. Take, as an instance, the area extending from Rondebosch to Eerste River, where there are houses scattered indiscriminately over an area of two or three square miles. It is quite impossible in a sandy area of that sort, to supply sanitary services. I am not sure whether the section, as it stands, is sufficient. I would like to ask the Minister of Public Health whether in giving power to vary the plan of a sub-division it is intended to give authority to a provincial council to vary the conditions on which land has been sold. If there is to be any retrospective effect, it should only be in regard to the lay-out itself. What would be the position if a provincial council decided to convert a residential area into a business area? Where there has been a reservation to Europeans of certain areas, would there be any power on the part of a provincial council to decide to interfere with such conditions? That would be a very serious derogation from the rights of a large number of people. In regard to sub-clause (d), I do thoroughly endorse the point that has been made by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) that, if land must be reserved, it should not be dealt with merely as a speculative matter and subsequently disposed of, and the proceeds devoted to other purposes. This is no hypothetical case. It has actually occurred very recently, where an attempt was made in respect of a large estate situate close to the heart of Capetown, to demand from the owners of the estate, which had been laid out years before, two acres for school purposes. That is an existing right of the Cape Provincial Administration. Surely it was never intended that they should make that demand, frankly admitting that the land was not required for school purposes, proceed to sell that land for ordinary-purposes, say for building, and then apply the proceeds to the erection of a school elsewhere. Under this proposal it may be taken for local government or other local purposes. In other words, we extend the existing power of the provincial administration to any local government authority. If a local government authority requires land, it has been a principle in the past that they should pay compensation for it. I would be prepared to say that that principle may be cut into to a limited extent, but surely there must be some bounds placed on the right of a local authority that might claim that a street should be 60 feet wide, instead of 30 feet wide, or, what is much more likely, which might claim squares or sites for the various buildings which from time to time a municipality may require, especially a modern municipality, playing fields, and all at the expense of the owner of the land. This point concerns those whose lands may be adjacent to large cities, and it is a principle which, if it goes on to our statute book, may operate with unexpected results in the future.

I should like to say a few words in reply to the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Coulter). I wish to state that this clause is not and does not pretend to be a town-planning Act. It is merely the giving of power by this Parliament to the provincial councils in connection with town-planning; and a good many of the points raised by the hon. member and others do not really belong here. They will come under discussion when the town-planning ordinance is brought forward by the provincial councils. The hon. member asked why powers should be given with respect to purely urban areas, and he mentioned more particularly the Cape Flats. I may point out that this also is not a matter which comes under the purview of this particular clause. Very wide powers with regard to that are entrusted under the Public Health Act to the Union Government. I will read a clause which bears upon this point from the Public Health Act in 1919, clause 132 G and H—

In accordance with these powers entrusted to the Minister of Public Health I issued regulations publicly not long ago and they are enforced upon the local authorities. The local authority in this particular respect would be the divisional council of the Cape. I think all the powers the hon. gentleman wishes are entrusted to the Minister of Public Health under this Public Health Act.

There is one point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) which the Minister has not dealt with, and that is in line 66, and where the decision as to whether these particular areas are intended for building purposes or urban settlements or not is left to the Administrator. I recognise there must be some authority to decide, but I think it would be better to give it to the executive committee of the province rather than to the Administrator. I do not see why this power should be given to the Administrator personally. I move—

I have no objection in principle, only that “Administrator,” in the laws of the province, is defined as “the executive committee,” just as the Governor-General-in-Council means the Cabinet.

It is not so defined in the Union Acts.

I think it is.

I should like to add—

to the amendment by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), as the Minister of Public Health is very largely concerned in town-planning, and the administration of public health by the Minister is so intimately bound up with questions of that kind. I move accordingly.

I cannot accept the amendment, because if you have two authorities, what is to happen if the two differ? I prefer my amendment as it stands.

I may add that the Minister of Public Health has a general power of supervision, from a public health point of view, and he can, at any time, step in and exercise that power; so that it is unnecessary to entrust him specially with power under this clause.

With the leave of the committee I withdraw my amendment.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Duncan were put and agreed to.

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford).

That should be left to the provincial council, I should say.

I think the powers are too wide.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Stuttaford was negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I move—

Agreed to.

The long title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered on Monday.

I move—

This measure is a Bill to consolidate and amend the laws regarding the organization and discipline of the railway service. In 1919 the then Minister of Railways and Harbours intimated to the members of the staff that he contemplated introducing a measure which would consolidate the rules and regulations dealing with discipline in the service. That Bill was submitted to the Conciliation Board, but unfortunately the board was not able to agree, and the matter dropped. The matter was further considered in 1923, by my predecessor, who introduced the Bill which was referred to a Select Committee, which very carefully considered the matter. During 1924 that Bill was considered in the House as amended by the Select Committee, but unfortunately owing to the breakup of the House, my hon. friend was not able to complete the measure. The Bill now before the House differs in some very material respects from the previous measure. Some of the alterations made by the Select Committee are embodied, and some which were not embodied by my hon. friend are not included in the Bill. There are two outstanding differences between this Bill and the measure introduced in 1923. The first is that the 1923 Bill was purely ah amending one, but this is a consolidating measure dealing with the whole of the organization and discipline of the Tailway service. There can be no doubt that this is a better form in which to deal with the whole matter, for if the Bill is passed the railway servants will know the conditions dealing with organization and discipline. There is one other difference, while the conditions and benefits with regard to superannuation fund were embodied in the 1923 Bill, in this measure no reference is made to superannuation benefits. I hope early in the coming session to introduce a Bill dealing with superannuation benefits. I am glad to be able to say that the Bill has been submitted to the Conciliation Board, and with the exception of one or two really minor points, all the recommendations of the board have been included in the Bill. This measure is to a very large extent an agreed Bill, but there are some small points upon which the Conciliation Board did not agree, and the staff are satisfied that their viewpoint has been met.

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

When the House adjourned I had dealt with the history of this measure and I pointed out that this Bill had been referred to the conciliation board and that, with very few exceptions, the conciliation board had agreed to this Bill. I think that the purpose of hon. members will be best served if I take the outstanding clauses and make a few comments on the most important.

Can it not be referred to a Select Committee?

Let me say at once that I do not propose sending this Bill to a Select Committee.

That is a pity.

It seems to me that if you were to send this Bill to a Select Committee we would endanger its passage, and I think my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) would be the first to admit that it is more than time that some measure—I do not say necessarily this measure—dealing with service conditions should this year come on our statute book. In view of the fact that we had a very full discussion in the Select Committee m 1923 and, more than that, the Select Committee took evidence from all staff organizations and individuals who offered to give evidence, so that all the information which hon. members may want they will find in the evidence which was taken in 1923, it seems to me that it would be unnecessary to refer the Bill again to a Select Committee and, besides, as I say, it may endanger the passage of the Bill. I think if I take the chief clauses and make a few comments on them, hon. members will best be able to follow the Bill and its more important provisions. I want to refer first to section 2 dealing with the appointment and discharge of servants. It will be generally admitted that in a business concern such as our railways and harbours we should have, and the management should have, full powers, simplicity of control and simplicity of delegation, and I think there can be no question that the existing Act of 1912 was not, as regards this question of the power on the part of the management to deal with employees, satisfactory. It is now clearly laid down in section 2 that the powers of appointment and discharge of servants and increase or reduction of their emoluments shall be vested in the Governor-General, who may delegate the whole or a portion of any of these powers by regulation. I think that deals satisfactorily with the whole position and gives the necessary pawer to the management to deal with the appointment and discharge of servants, of course, subject to what is laid down in later clauses of the Bill, where I think hon. members will agree that the rights of our employees are fully protected. Clause 3 is a new clause and deals with the question of reduction of wages. Hon. members know that it has been a point of feeling on the part of the staff that this question of the reduction of wages should not have been dealt with in the 1912 Act, and they will see that it is now dealt with under clause 3, where it is provided that the wages or salary of a servant in permanent employment shall not be reduced without his consent, except by a decision made under the provisions of this Act as a result of disciplinary charges or an Act authorized by Parliament reducing the emoluments of servants right through the service. I think that clause 3 deals with that position clearly and that it is a satisfactory solution of that difficulty. Clauses 4 to 6 deal with the important point of permanent employment. I think it will be generally admitted that the existing Act of 1912 did not deal satisfactorily with this whole question, and it is time that this question of permanent employment, and who are to be considered as being in permanent employment, and admission to permanent employment should be put on a sound basis. Hon. members will see that clause 4 (1) gives what are the necessary qualifications for persons to be appointed to permanent employment. I may point to sub-clause (3) where the principle is introduced which was introduced in 1923 into the public service, viz., that there should be three years residence in South Africa before anybody is appointed, but, of course, appointments may be made without that if the Minister is satisfied that good cause exists. A return must be laid on he Table of the House from year to year giving particulars of these appointments if made contrary to this principle of three years residence in South Africa. In clause 5 the important principle is laid down that two classes of persons shall be considered as being in permanent employment. The first class is those who were pre-1912 men, and the other class falls under those who have received a certificate of permanent employment. Now that is quite a new provision, and I think it is a necessary provision. This certificate of permanent employment is not issued by an officer or by the general manager unless the servant has had two years’ continuous employment in the service. As a safeguard, on the other hand, for the employee, there is this limit fixed, that no servant shall remain in temporary employment for more than five years, unless the Minister has specially dealt with that case, unless, in other words, the authority of the Minister has been obtained. Another principle which I trust the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will approve is that if a certificate of permanent employment has not been issued within six months after the expiration of the two years the servant is entitled to ask why a certificate has not been granted. In sub-section (3) of clause 6 hon. members will see that employees in receipt of the wage of 5s. are entitled to come on to the permanent staff. The whole class of European labourers and coloured labourers, so long as they conform to this principle of 5s., will be eligible to come on to the permanent staff. Clause 7 deals with the position of temporary servants. Hon. members will agree that the position of temporary servants has improved. It is now laid down that where a servant has been in temporary employment up to five years he is entitled to 21 days’ notice, and for service over five years he is entitled to one month’s notice. Clause 8 deal with the very important principle of language qualification. This clause is a repetition of the compromise which was arrived at by the Select Committee in 1923. The House will agree that there is no reason why the principles of the compromise should not now also be maintained. I want to point out, and members should realize, that an important change is made, that is, while formerly the bar after five years applied to a man according to his grade and not to his salary; now a change is made, and the bar after five years now applies to his salary and not to the grade. I think that is quite satisfactory, and it will be generally admitted that the principle is sound. I just want to draw attention to the fact that within five years of the passing of this Act no person will be appointed to a clerical post unless he has passed the necessary examination qualifying in both official languages, because I hope hon. members have realized that this only applies to the clerical staff. Clause 10 deals with efficiency provisions. I need not detain the House on this, because I think it is perfectly clear what the position is there. Now I want to deal with clause 11, the retrenchment clause. The outstanding principle of the clause is this, that where formerly officers were dealt with in one way and received a gratuity, different treatment was meted out to the daily-paid men. That has been a fruitful cause of complaint for many years. This is now put right, and without going into the whole matter, I may say the general position is now that where a daily-paid man is paid off or retrenched through reorganization or other cause, he will be dealt with in practically the same way as an officer. This will remove a long-standing grievance that the daily-paid men have had. Clause 14 lays down the very important principle that in future all servants will retire at 60, with the exceptions mentioned here. These are telegraphists, drivers, assistant-drivers or firemen of steam or electrical locomotives, and drivers. These men will retire at 55. I do not think there will be any serious objection to this, because it is due to the younger men that the older men should retire in order to give the younger men their opportunity. I know it has always been argued that the railway pensions are on such a low scale that a man does not want to go at 60 because the pension is not sufficient; but I am sure that the Pensions Bill which I intend introducing, while I will not say liberal, is on such a fair and reasonable basis that it will remove that difficulty which there has always been. Employees who have reached the retiring age will then feel that the pension is such that they can retire and give the younger men their opportunity for promotion. It is a long-standing grievance that crops up practically every day, that there are so many men at the top of their grade who cannot get the promotion that their talents and efficiency entitle them to.

But it is practically the case now.

I may say to my hon. friend that when I took office I found quite a fair number who had exceeded the age of 60 in the service. My hon. friend was perfectly right in retaining them; I am not criticizing him, but he will agree that this step is now necessary. Hon. members will see that a return will be laid on the Table every year in order that the House may be kept informed. Now I want to deal with chapter 2. Discipline and Appeals. In regard to discipline and appeal procedure, hon. members will see that we have done our best to simplify the procedure, Up to the present it has been rather too involved, and has kept servants in difficulty and doubt as to what the ultimate position would be for too long a time. Now it is proposed to establish local appeal boards which will be able to deal with the position from time to time. This will result in quick decisions. The present system is too elaborate, and the system here evolved is a great improvement on the old procedure. Clause 16 is in connection with the famous double-trial. I want to explain the compromise which has been effected with regard to this famous subject, a compromise which the Conciliation Board have accepted. It is no longer a question as between the administration, the management and the men. While possibly it does not satisfy the men in every way, they recognize that this is a fair solution of the difficulty. I can best explain by giving two concrete cases of how the principle now works. Take a case of theft; a man appearing on a criminal charge in the magistrate’s court or the Supreme Court, if found not guilty is discharged. He will be entitled to say, “I have been found not guilty,” and no further procedure will be taken. In other words, the department will not try that man further on the charge of theft. There is an important exception. A collision occurs, and an engine-driver is charged with culpable homicide and found not guilty in the magistrate’s court or the Supreme Court. The department will not try him again for culpable homicide, but that does not place him outside the regulations, and he will still be tried by the department under the machinery for whatever breach of the regulations he may have been guilty of. For instance, he might be charged with passing a signal at “Danger.” That is the whole principle. Hon. members, I think, will agree that this is a satisfactory solution of the whole difficulty. In clause 28, I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the Cape fixed men and the Natal servants get the option of retaining existing rights as regards disciplinary action which may arise against them. They have the option within two years of the passing of this Act of coming in under the regulations dealing with appeal and disciplinary provisions. That solves a difficulty around which a good deal of controversy has centred itself. I have not the least doubt that our servants, our Cape fixed men and the old Natal servants, will all realize under the new regulations that as regards discipline and appeals their rights are far better entrenched, and many of them will elect to come under the provisions of the existing Act as laid down here. But, of course, that is a matter for those old servants of the Cape or Natal to decide for themselves. They have the option, within two years, and it is for them to decide what action they will take. I now want to deal with clause 18, sub-section (4), because this is a new provision which is important. Let me first deal with sub-section (6). Hon. members will see that the Appeal Board—the body to which the servant may appeal, after he has been dealt with by the officer in the first instance, if it is found he is guilty of breaking regulation—is constituted as follows: One servant nominated by the administration, and one servant elected from the class of servants to whom the appellant belongs. That seems to be a useful and fair constitution of the Appeal Board. In regard to sub-section (4) if the servant is dissatisfied with the decision in a case in which there is not a unanimous finding, he has a thorough right of appeal to the general manager and to the railway board. He has that right when there is not a unanimous decision. If the decision of the appeal board is unanimous, that is final. I think it is quite fair, too. It must be remembered that one of his own grade, elected by themselves, is a member of the court of appeal, and if there is unanimity with regard to the finding of the appeal board, I think it is right that there should be finality then, because if you were to give a further appeal, you would have the general manager and the railway board busy all day; because in a big service like the railways, with over 90.000 men, you have very many cases coming up from time to time. The service is giving excellent service on the whole, and there are comparatively few cases, but, at the same time, we are bound to have a large number of cases from time to time, and, therefore, I think the provisions referred to are quite fair.

If they disagree?

Then there is a right of appeal to the general manager, and a further right of appeal to the railway board.

There is no decision to appeal against.

Yes. The appellant has already been found guilty by an officer—there is a judgment against him. He then appeals against this judgment; there is no unanimity in the appeal board, so that judgment stands. He appeals against this judgment of his officer to the general manager, and to the railway board. Clause 19 embodies another new principle, which I want to explain to hon. members. Sub-clause (1) (a) lays down that when an employee is discharged he shall have the right to have the assistance of an official of any staff union or trades union of which he is a member. While there may be some doubt about the justice of this, I want to say that I am convinced we should give this right to our employees, because when a man is charged under a regulation, one must not forget that it is the man’s bread and butter. For the greater period of his life he may have been employed in the railway service, and if he is discharged at say 45 years of age, it is difficult for him to obtain employment in some other sphere, so that when he is discharged we should give him every facility to place his case in the best possible manner, and in doing this we are doing nothing more than justice to our employees. Of course, if they do not want an officer of a staff union, they can ask a fellow servant to come, and we will give every facility to this servant whom they may elect. They have the choice of a fellow servant or a member of a staff union, and provision is made for the payment of expenses to this fellow servant who has come to assist in the defence of this appellant. But there is a saving clause to the effect that this only applies if the fine is £5 or more. We do not propose paying the expenses of this fellow servant unless it is a charge of some severity and importance involving a fine of £5 or more. Then I come to clause 23, which hon. members will see refers to desertion by servants or refusal to serve. I might call it the “strike” clause.

Surely that is not the strike clause? Won’t it come Under the Superannuation Act?

Yes, but this is really the clause in the Service Act which deals with it. I hope my hon. friend will agree with me that this question of whatever penalty you may want to attach to a man who went on strike should be dealt with in the Superannuation Act and not here. I propose, in committee, to ask the House to delete clause 23. I want to point out that that does not in the least affect the right of the administration or management to deal with a man who deserts, refuses to serve or absents himself from duty. If any employee is guilty of any of these things, he will be dealt with under the regulations, and if it is a bad case he will be dismissed. I have made enquiries and I understand that during the whole period since 1912, this clause has never been invoked, but, unfortunately, we have passed through very strenuous times since then, and have had more than one strike, and notwithstanding that, it has never been found necessary to apply clause 23; in other words, the administration has never found it necessary to go to the Crown Prosecutor and say: “Here is a servant who has been discharged, will you take criminal proceedings against him.” There seems to be general agreement that this clause should come out. It is irritating to our employees, and I think it would be wrong to retain it in the Bill, and while we trust—and I have every reason to say that at the present time there is an excellent feeling on the part of the men—I hope the time of strikes has passed from us for ever, not only while this Government is in power, but during the time of any Government which may follow this one. I hope that our railway service, busy as they are, in an essential service to the country, will always realize their duty to the country while the country is giving them the benefits we propose, under this Bill and also under the Superannuation Bill. I hope the time will never come when our railway servants will think it necessary to strike again. The time may come when they may think it right to strike, and history will decide whether they are entitled to strike. But I hope this clause will never be necessary, and that its deletion will receive the general approval of the House. Clause 25 deals with the establishment of the conciliation board and I am glad to be able to testify to the usefulness and the great good work which has been done by this board in the past. I know that my predecessor, and others before him, as Ministers, will agree that the conciliation board has done excellent work. The board is composed of 5 men, nominated by the administration—usually senior officers—and 5 elected representatives by the men. This, I am glad to say, that, during the time I have served the country as Minister, the board has done excellent work, and it has been a great pleasure, practically in every case, to approve of their recommendations. I think the board is entitled, now, to receive statutory status, and we should now give them the position which they deserve, and that it may not be at the whim of any Minister in the future to wipe away what has, undoubtedly, been a very useful body. The conciliation board will consider such matters affecting the staff as may be referred to it, and report to the management.

You will regulate the meetings by regulation?

Hon. members will understand that matters of policy are not referred to the board. They are dealt with by the railway board and by the Minister. Let me give one case in point. There has been a question agitating the minds of railway servants, especially those working under outside conditions, in regard to rain proof coats—macintoshes. There was a general feeling among the servants, and we referred the matter to the board, and said: “Put up recommendations as regards the supply of macintoshes.” That is an instance of the kind of matters referred to the board. I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that we should be careful not to duplicate the work of this conciliation board, and that they should not meet too frequently. That can be regulated and is regulated, so that they meet from time to time when justified. I am not referring to clause 26, which has been taken over from the existing Act of 1912, as I do not think it necessary to take up the time of the House in regard to that. Clause 30 deals with Cape contributors whose rights are protected under section 144 of the South Africa Act. Clause 33 legalizes the position which, I regret, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) some time ago denied, and stated that as far as he knew it had not been done. I do not want to quarrel about it, or to discuss it further, but in the years from 1918 to 1921—up to the time my hon. friend took over—there was a contravention of the language qualification. When my hon. friend took over, he at once gave instructions that the Act be applied. Hon. members may ask why we should insert 31st December, 1923, if my predecessor had the law carried out in 1921. I may say that it is because, quite bona fide, there may have been a few cases where the law was still contravened after the instruction was issued. I do not propose in any way penalizing these men who have been advanced contrary to the law. It was unfortunate, but these men have been advanced, and I think it would create a feeling of injustice if we were to make it retrospective and take away increments they may have received. 195 employees were promoted in this way, contrary to the terms of the law, and the amount it cost us in unauthorized expenditure raised by the Controller and Auditor-General was £46,500. We can now consider it a closed book, and at the present time the law is being carried out, and it is pleasing to be able to say that from all the information we have from all over the country, not even excluding gallant Natal—

Why gallant Natal?

Why not gallant? I mean that in a very complimentary sense. I trust that my hon. friend does not think that any reflection is meant on Natal. He must have been worsted in some previous debate to be so touchy. There is no intention on my part to reflect on Natal.

It should have been gallant and loyal.

Including Natal, all our servants—both senior officials and lower paid men—realize that we are living in a bilingual country, and the sooner they are able to converse in both languages the better. I am afraid many of them will not be able to write in both languages, but if our railway servants could only realize how much it is appreciated by both Dutch and English-speaking people that they should be able to address them in either of the official languages, it would be a great advantage. A large number of our railway servants who have reached 50 and over will probably not be able to pick up sufficient to address the public in Dutch, but may I say as one belonging to the Dutch section—

Say a word or two to your friends down there.

I am addressing it to all parties. This is an appeal to all sections of the people of which the Dutch are a very large important section. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will be the first to admit that our position as regards the knowledge of a second language on the railway system is not satisfactory.

I am not objecting, but I asked you to address the gospel to your friends.

I do, but have I not more reason to address myself to my hon. friend who was a member of the last Cabinet, and who had responsibility and power? What does he say to clause 23, where the law was not carried out? I trust that our railway officials will understand that if they are not able to address the public in Dutch or English, that the language of the people is dear to them, and that if any member addresses a public servant—because our railway servants are public servants—then that member of the public has a right, if that public servant is not able to reply in the language in which he is addressed, to expect a respectful treatment by that official, who unfortunately is not able to speak the language of that member of the public. If that is realized we will have an end of all this difficulty, which unfortunately now and then still arises. Our railway men realize that Dutch-speaking members of the public have a right when they travel on the trains to speak their own language. May I say again, as one of Dutch extraction, that my experience proves that if a railway official, not being able to speak the language in which he is addressed, respectfully informs the member of the public concerned that he is not able to speak that language, that he will not find members of the Dutch-speaking and English-speaking sections so unreasonable as not to understand that that particular official is not able to reply in their language. We have a right, and as long as I am a Minister I shall insist that members of the public shall have their rights respected as to both languages. Sub-section 2 of clause 33 deals with the question of accumulation of leave. In 1921 the staff section of the accounting branch was amalgamated with the general staff section, and it was found that there were different regulations in regard to leave in pre-Union days, and the accounting section had taken too long leave. The staff office took steps to limit this, but after some time the administration was informed that this was against the law, and that they were not entitled to take from the servants the greater leave they had been given, and we now ask Parliament to close the book and to waive the limitation. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more with regard to this Bill. I have dealt with the most important clauses, and in committee I shall be pleased to give further information with regard to other clauses. I trust that with this statement the House will be prepared to agree to the second reading, and that there will be no insistence on sending the Bill to a Select Committee, for that may endanger the measure.

We are very much indebted to the Minister for the pains he has taken in explaining the Bill in considerable detail, but I am very sorry indeed that he will not send it to Select Committee, for I think that would rather hasten than retard the progress of the Bill. I am quite prepared to support the passage of the Bill, which is largely a consolidating one as regards the appointment and discharge of servants and also as regards discipline. A good deal of this measure is taken from the Bill I introduced when I had the honour of being Minister of Railways and Harbours. For instance, the age limit was agreed upon, and I introduced the principle of giving notice to temporary men before they were retired. There is one thing I don’t agree with and that is in clause 19, that is the assistance of outsiders in the case of an appeal. The old policy was that if a man was in trouble and he desired assistance, he could obtain that from anyone in the service, but outsiders were not brought in. As regards the strike clause, I would like to see what my hon. friend has put in in the Superannuation Bill. As this Bill contains such great detail I think it should be referred to Select Committee. The Bill deals with two principal matters, the appointment and discharge of servants and discipline, and also appeals, and to that extent it is a consolidating Bill, but much to my regret my hon. friend has not introduced a superannuation Bill, which is much more important and pressing than is this measure. He is desirous of fixing things up as early as possible, but no one would suffer seriously because this Bill has not yet become law, but as regards the superannuation fund, it is in an insolvent position, and is becoming worse every month, as it is on an unsound basis. I am not so sanguine as the Minister that he will manage to pass both Bills this session, as time is getting on.

Oh, yes.

What about obstruction?

We don’t believe in obstruction but in adequate discussion. There is also the matter of the widows’ pension fund, which is being urgently called for by the staff. Our railways are a business concern with some 90,000 employees, and should be conducted on business lines as laid down in the Act of Union. It is very curious that although our railways are a State enterprise, the administration have really more power, and in some cases more autocratic power, than any private railway you could mention. For instance, rates and fares are decided entirely by the administration, but in England the railway companies cannot raise the rates without the sanction of a statutory commission. They may be able to reduce them, but they cannot raise them without the assent of the commission. The power to raise or reduce fares in this country rests with the Railway Board. It is, of course, subject to the approval of the Cabinet. They have large powers in the hands of the Railway Board.

Are you against it?

No, I am in favour of it. There is another point. I doubt myself whether, in Great Britain, a private company could do as the railway department does in this country in charging extra fares or booking fees against persons who have lost or not taken out a ticket. That is a matter of great complaint. I know I did not give it up, but I doubt if it could be done by a private railway in Great Britain. Of course, I am perfectly well aware the railway administration is amenable to the ordinary law, but there are no special laws to limit their powers so far as the general public are concerned. But when it is a matter of dealing with the staff their hands are tied. Take the matter of appointments. It is not always a question of appointing the most suitable man for the job. The Minister has explained two limitations in the Bill. A man cannot be employed who has not lived three years in the country. That is the law, and it is not a matter of suitability at all.

Have you not got sufficient men in the country now for that purpose?

No, you have not. You frequently cannot get suitable men for waiters.

That is provided for.

But when a train is starting, can you run to the Minister to get leave to engage a waiter who has not been three years in South Africa?

Can you go overseas?

Are you against it?

Yes, because I believe under the Act of Union a business should be run on business lines. Take the most suitable man for the job. There is another point laid down that after five years from the date of this Bill every man taken on to the clerical staff must be bilingual. I agree about the necessity for courtesy, and my hon. friend will agree that has always been the policy of the department. We were continually sending out circulars when I was there impressing on the staff the need for courtesy in dealing with the public. On the question of the language, I do not see, as far as regards the clerical staff, it is always necessary. As regards the wages and salaries clause. No. 3 carefully ties his hands. Let me read clause No. 3 of the Bill—

That binds the hands of the administration to a large extent. Minor and serious misconduct is defined, and how it is to be dealt with and what punishment must be given is laid down in the Bill. Opportunity is given for appeals, and I cordially support the Bill in regard to the first appeal board, the two men, and then the appeal to the board. We found this appeal board consisting of one man of the same grade as the man tried and an officer of the department has been very successful. In allowing a case of appeal to the board, I don’t agree to the board hearing the appeal in person. I think you might have let the Minister, and the board, go through all the papers and come to a decision. I am now going to say something which may give offence. What with a very careful protection of the staff, which practically gives them fixity of tenure in the service, plus a sick fund, to which the administration contributes 70 per cent., plus pension rights, to which the administration contributes 50 per cent., plus liberal holiday leave, plus in some cases very low railway fares and in other cases free fares, which the whole staff enjoy, we have made of the permanent staff of the railways a privileged class better off than the bulk of the public in South Africa to-day. They are more taken care of in this House than are the users of the railways, the men who bring the traffic to the railways and are responsible for their prosperity, and I go further, and say this policy is advocated by the Pact parties to-day. That was the policy advocated by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow), whom we heard from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) is going to be a member of the railway board at an early date.

That was a joke.

It was certainly not intended for a joke. My hon. friend the member for Salt River said the other day that the first consideration, as far as the railways were concerned, was the men and their pay, and the users, the ordinary public, came second.

What’s wrong with that?

There is a good deal wrong with it, for certainly the public should have consideration. In fact I think myself that if it had not been for this policy which my hon. friend is pursuing, he would already have given further reduction in the rates to which the public are entitled at the present time. There is no manner of doubt in the same circumstances in which he found himself at the beginning of the year, the late Government would have taken that step.

And you would have acted foolishly.

I think that would have been a sound policy to pursue, but he has not pursued it. We shall have to await results, but I think the time for reduction of rates has passed by under the present regime. I again urge for the consideration of the Minister that he should refer the Bill to a Select Committee, where it will get better and more consideration.

I only wish to say a few words in support of the Bill. I feel that this Bill has long been required. Two years ago there was a Select Committee and the evidence that was taken before that committee dealt exactly with the cases for which provision is made in this Bill. I just wish to touch upon a few points to which I think the hon. Minister has not given sufficient attention, points which were also mentioned in the evidence before the Select Committee. In the first place the hon. Minister says that full rights will be given to the railway men as regards permanent employment. I do not know whether I understood the hon. Minister correctly but I think that he said after five years temporary service a railway servant will be taken into permanent employment, but I think that that ought to be that when a man has been two years employed on probation he should, thereafter, be appointed to the permanent staff. I have always felt that the position with regard to irregular and temporary officials is difficult. An official is six, seven or eight years in the service before he is appointed permanently. It is a wrong state of affairs. A man who has served two years probation must be appointed as a permanent official and receive a fixed salary. Then I want to say something more about the language question, a matter, which to me, as a Dutch speaking Afrikander, is of great importance. We have had several discussions about this matter in this House. By Act 28 of 1912, that is years ago, it was laid down that after a certain time officials must be bilingual. The Act of 1912 lays down that every clerk on the railways must be bilingual within five years after the passing of the Act and that he must pass an examination to qualify for promotion in the service. This Act has been so often contravened that one can almost say that it might as well not have existed at all. During last year and the year before we had instances before us, out of 1,368 persons appointed, 593 were unilingual, notwithstanding that they fell under the Act of 1912. The general manager of railways did not comply with that section of the Act of 1912. Officials were constantly appointed and promotions made in conflict with the language provisions of the 1912 Act. The result is that in our railway service to-day the higher officials, the senior officers are almost exclusively unilingual and in view hereof we have always had the suspicion that the unilingual senior officers in the service were partial towards unilingual officials who were on the lower rung of the ladder. We have had cases before us of Dutch-speaking people who were not appointed because the unilingual senior officer has not allowed them to pass as competent, but there are hundreds of cases of unilingual English people who were appointed immediately on application and were at once appointed permanently and were promoted from year to year notwithstanding that they could only speak English. And what must we say with regard to the unilingual Dutch officials who were already in the service? They had no chance of promotion. This is not theory but practical experience. Men who were absolutely capable but who did not know English—and not only in cases where it was a matter of clerical posts but in cases where bilingualism was not so necessary—were punished because they were unilingual Dutch-sneaking people, and had no chance of appointment. They were expected to render their reports in English and when the English-sneaking senior officer received a report in Dutch he threw it out of the door and the official was punished because he was unable to draw up the report in English. These are facts and under the previous Government we felt that there were definite punishments of every Dutch-speaking official in the railway service. Now our Minister comes here to-day and asks indemnity for certain contraventions of the former Minister of Railways and his staff.

We were not guilty of what the hon. member says.

If the hon. member wishes I will give him the figures. The hon. Minister has, to-day, read them out. He said that there were more than 195 instances—

That was in Mr. Burton’s time.

Let us admit that it was when Mr. Burton was Minister of Railways and Harbours, but in any case many officials were promoted after 1922 when the former Minister of Railways came into power although they had not yet learnt the second language nor had tried to learn it. And that is surely what the Act provides. I am surprised that the hon. member for Gape, Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who shakes his head. Just let me refer him to page 71 of the report for 1923-’24. Let me, for the benefit of the hon. member, just read a little of the Auditor General’s report—

Here we have the judgment of the Auditor-General—

Will the hon. gentleman read a little louder, and also give the answer, please?

Good, I will read further—

My argument is that that is wrong.

Further evidence was taken yesterday. The hon. member is not fair.

Yes, I know that, but I may not make any use of that evidence. My accusation is that since 1922 appointments and promotion of persons has continued to go on who do not know the two languages. This, therefore, has also occurred under the control of the member for Cape Town (Central). Now, the hon. Minister comes and asks to be indemnified regarding the 195 officials who were thus promoted and to whom a sum of £46,000 has been illegally paid. That is a state of affairs I complain about. I do not say that the indemnity must not be given, but I comment upon the fact that the Dutch-speaking officials in the railway service have not been promoted while the English-speaking officials have been always promoted, notwithstanding the fact that they had not learnt the second language.

We never excluded the Dutchspeaking people from the service.

Yes, in practice. The misfortune was that we had Ministers who sat under the shadow of Table Mountain and did not know what was going on in the interior. If the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) would go to the far-off places where one finds local foremen who are unilingual, stationmasters and gangers who are unilingual, then we will be able to learn how often our poor Dutch-speaking Afrikanders apply to be appointed without success. That is the way things went in my constituency and right through the Free State.

In the Transvaal also.

We complain about this. I am very sorry that I may not say anything about the evidence given yesterday, then I could mention names, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will then feel ashamed, but I have not the right to use that evidence. I therefore go no further than this report. I hope that the new administration will see to it that our Dutch-speaking people get right and justice. I am prepared to give indemnity for the happenings of the past, but I then also ask an opportunity for the Dutch-speaking officials also to be promoted to local foremen. I just wonder how many stationmasters there are with Dutch names. I hope that the new control will see to it that all parties in future are treated equally and the same opportunities created for Dutch-speaking as well as for English-speaking people. Let me just tell the hon. Minister that I have here in my possession a letter complaining that even in the past week certain unilingual persons were employed by the local foremen while others were not engaged. These are the small pin pricks which sometimes make us angry and compel us sometimes to bring up the matter here in the House. When we see that all the high officials are English-speaking and in most cases unilingual officials, then it hurts our Afrikanders just a bit, and I hope that in future an end will be made to this state of affairs. We have a right to demand this. I was glad to hear from the hon. Minister that with reference to section 23 (in connection with strikes) he would not force it through the House. I hope that the provision about strikes will be removed, because I believe that it is a dangerous principle to make strikes criminally punishable. In the meantime I hope that in the future strikes will be avoided in the country by the conciliation board and by the better system of trial which is introduced by this Bill. The conciliation board should be able to settle many differences if it answers its purpose, but with reference to the penal clauses, in which is included the provision that anyone who is accused can have another man of his own grade in the service to be present and help him in his defence before the officer or board before whom he has to appear, is a good thing. As, however, the hon. Minister will remember, it was requested at the time that not only someone of the same rank as the accused should assist him, but that the man should also have the right to be assisted by a legal adviser. I hope that that amendment of the provision will be accepted in committee. I hope the hon. Minister will accept an amendment on those lines in committee. As regards the double trial, I understand that it is entirely abolished, except in extraordinary serious cases as at a railway accident. In such a case it is possible that a man might be acquitted by the magistrate, but he might still be convicted by the railway authorities of negligence by which the accident was caused. In any case, I am glad that in other cases the double trial is abolished. I hope to mention further points in committee.

I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) in his view that this Bill should be accompanied by the Superannuation Bill. I look upon this as the first of two Bills, which in the ordinary way will go through this session, and I regard it as urgent that this Bill should be put through as early as possible. For that reason I do not agree with the suggestion that it should go to a Selection Committee. The principle of the Bill was discussed at great length by the Select Committee in 1923, so I do not see that it should go to a Select Committee again, and I would be sorry to see anything done to hamper the Bill. Under this Bill you are providing better machinery for the settlement of disputes, and altogether I think the Minister must be complimented upon having made a good attempt at solving difficulties which have been before the railway administration for many years. The double trial provision alone is a good reason why the passage of the Bill should not be delayed by being sent to a Select Committee. I think it should be placed on the statute book as early as possible. As I expected, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) takes serious objection to the provision whereby a servant charged under certain circumstances shall have the right of being accompanied, at an inquiry, by a person other than a railway servant. The Minister said the man might have a fellow servant; but he also has the right to call in what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) calls an “outsider.” I am glad the minister is making provision for that, because the average railway servant, when it comes to inquiries, finds his legal knowledge is deficient. He may be perfectly innocent; but owing to his lack of knowledge of procedure, and the atmosphere in connection with an inquiry, he is almost bound to “put his foot in it,” and thereafter he is handicapped throughout the whole inquiry. I would like the Minister to go further and agree to the man having legal assistance in a case of serious misconduct. The officials who conduct the inquiry are experts in their particular line, and the railway servant is liable to be handicapped, even if accompanied by a fellow servant or a member of the trades union. The servant should be entitled to have this assistance at the preliminary proceedings, seeing that the matter may go right through to the Railway Board. An hon. member reminds me that the railway servant is the person who has to bear the brunt of the proceedings. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) still maintains the position he took up in Select Committee against the servant being allowed to appear in person before the Railway Board. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) put up a good fight for the servant to have this right and we supported him, but his own Minister was against him. Not many servants would wish to appeal in person to the board, but I think they should have this right in the case of dismissal from the service. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) objected to it.

There is no doubt about that. I object to it now.

I do not think other hon. members will begrudge the servant the right I am claiming. I understand from the Minister, and from the railway servants, that this Bill is an agreed Bill, except for one or two details which may be thrashed out in the House. I have been rather worried about this matter of permanent employment. Under section 6 provision has been made for temporary servants with five years’ service or over. In giving evidence in connection with the parent Act in 1912 we tried to establish the right of a railway servant to be placed on the permanent staff after say two years. I know it is a big thing to ask, but perhaps the Minister would agree to three years, which would be very much appreciated. In regard to the language clause, I think in fairness to the South African boys who are being taken on, the provisions are very satisfactory, and I think the Minister has struck a happy medium; but I am somewhat concerned about those servants who joined subsequent to Union, and who, owing to the policy of the late Government, did not worry much about qualifying bilingually. These servants are in rather a different category to the entrants to the service to-day who know exactly what is expected of them and who know they must be bilingually qualified. I hope that the Minister will be reasonable in the interpretation of the clause and that there will be no cases of hardship amongst that section of the staff that I mention. As regards the language question, the railway servants are taking ten times more interest in that matter than ever before, and they should not be discouraged in any way. With reference to appeals, I think there will be far less trouble in the future and fewer cases will come before the courts. The Minister has not made the point quite clear with regard to the gratuity to temporary servants. In 1912 the objection of the general manager to placing all men with over two years’ service on the permanent staff, was because if they were retrenched they would have to be given a gratuity. The question of the retiring age is rather important, and I wish to put in a plea for a class of servant for whom the Minister should do something. I agree in principle that railway servants should retire at sixty years of age, but there are a certain number of railway servants who are on the eve of being retired, and if they are retired under the present Act they will come under the existing pension fund and receive pensions which will be absolutely insufficient. In view of the fact that a Superannuation Bill will be brought forward this session, will the Minister consider the advisability of these men being retained in the service for a few months until these Bills are passed? I am very glad that the Minister is making statutory provision for the conciliation board, for that will make for contentment in the service, but I would like to see more important questions submitted to that board, for there are wonderful possibilities about such a board. I am also pleased that the Minister is making provision for preserving the rights of men on the Cape fixed establishment and pre-Union Natal servants; under the previous Bill these servants thought their rights were being taken away, and I do not think that many of them will decide to come in under this Bill, although they have the option. There is only one matter in regard to clause 32, and that is the question of examinations. Under this clause the administration may make regulations with regard to the conduct and the subjects of examinations to qualify for admission or promotion in certain branches of the service. The Minister knows the point. We have had some examinations for apprentices which have been ludicrous. The questions were not connected with the training of boys in certain trades at all, and you could not reconcile the papers set with the fact that the boys were going to become apprentices. One boy who rushed to become a fitter was asked a question, “Who is Mussollini?” These papers should be set by practical men and should have some bearing on the particular trade a boy intends to follow, and should not consist of such a silly series of questions as has been the case in the last few years. If that is done we shall get better boys with a knowledge of modern mechanics, although they may not he so smart in ancient and modern history. I again repeat that I do not think it is necessary after the discussions during the last few years to send this Bill to a Select Committee, but I do want to see the Minister hurry up the Superannuation Bill, so that it can be placed, together with this Bill, on the statute book as early as possible, in the hope that a feeling of greater security and contentment amongst all sections of the service will result therefrom.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) is so pleased, and has spent so much time in praising the Minister in detail, that I hope the Minister will not take exception if I join the chorus and also congratulate him. I congratulate him on being the first Minister during this session to introduce a Bill without any party feeling. At times I even thought I was listening to the previous Minister of Railways. The Minister from that side of the House is so different from what he was on this side of the House, that at times I thought I was listening to the hon. member, for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger).

That is a compliment, indeed.

Yes; but I thought it was unnatural for the Minister to break away from the policy which has been growing in this House of late. I was therefore not surprised when I heard the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels). Having sat with him in committees for some months, I found him a fair-minded man, one who went into questions for the best interests of the department, but he has come back to normal, and we find him trying to make party capital, and even being not quite fair. When the question referred to was raised in the Auditor-General’s report, an explanation was given by the general manager of the railways. I don’t say the hon. member should have accepted the explanation, but I think it would have been fair to mention what the department’s view was and the position the department took up. We do not hear him giving the chief reason, which is one I might give to the House with regard to this complaint. That is that during five very strenuous years in the history of this country many of the men were away fighting our battles. The department is perfectly correct in considering these men when they return. I go so far as to say that if the law was broken to keep these men in their positions I would have supported it. Surely, the hon. member for Bethlehem might have mentioned it, and it would have taken away the party sting. By an interruption I gave him an opportunity of stating the reply to the Auditor-General. That reply should be considered as well as the remarks of the Auditor-General when we debate this matter in the House. I don’t think there is a single member in the House who would not hold that a South African should have the first choice, all things being equal, but it is nonsense to say that no South African is in a high position on the railways. There is one man I can mention, formerly chief of staff, second to the general manager, who is now lent to another country on account of his service and ability. He can be brought back when required, a man born at Stellenbosch, one who speaks Dutch, and a man who is going to take a first place m the railways some day. Another member of the railway staff, one Watermeyer, a chief engineer, who, during the enquiry on the Durban grain elevator, was frequently mentioned and to whose opinion much weight was attached. He is another South African. How can the hon. member say that no South African gets a high position?

Those are two exceptions which prove the rule.

When you start being reasonable in your objections I might reply. I think the hon. member for Bethlehem should be more careful when he makes remarks such he made this evening. The Minister was one of those in 1923 who gave to the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) a very good reception. I refreshed my memory only this evening, and I have enjoyed reading his speech. He had a few faults to find with the Bill, so had I, and so had many others, but probably one of his chief objections was in regard to the system of double trials. He made great play about the double trial. What do we find this evening? We find double trial introduced in the Bill. The Minister gave us some explanation as to how he is going to administer that, but I do not know that that explanation is going to hold water. After all, you can only administer in accordance with the terms of the Bill. The Minister says that if a man is tried for theft and he is found guilty by the court, the department would not subject him to a further trial, but, on the other hand, if a man is tried for manslaughter, say, after a collision, the department may try him again.

Manslaughter has nothing to do with regulations.

That was the case you put, however. A collision has. I want to know where the Minister is going to draw the line.

Read the Bill and you will see what offences are subject to double trial, and what are not.

I say again, where is he going to draw the line? We are going to say in the first case that there is no regulation broken, and in the second case that a regulation is broken.

The Bill deals with that point.

Why give an illustration that may have a double meaning? In the same way it might be taken that if a man is guilty of theft he may have done something by which he broke a regulation. What we do feel thankful for is that the Minister has at last come to see that in many cases—I do not say in all cases—that we were right when we said that double trial is necessary in a big administration such as this. I congratulate the Minister on his conversion. I have always held as strongly as anybody could hold that you should not persecute these men, but there are cases where men are entrusted with human life that should be dealt with not only by the courts of law, but also by the department, which is in a better position to say whether a man is fit to continue as an engine driver or not. After all, the public has to be protected, and the public is rightly protected when you have the second trial. What I want to impress on the Minister now is this. He admits that the conciliation board is not in entire agreement with the Bill, but he has not told us on which clauses they disagree. I want to impress upon him the necessity of sending this Bill to a Select Committee.

I said that many of the objections have been dealt with in the Bill.

Let us give an opportunity to these people who still have some objection to the Bill, to come forward, and let us see what their objections are, and in the meantime go on with your Superannuation Fund Bill. I think that we should have these two Bills together. Why not send the Superannuation Bill also to a Select Committee, and let us have these railway officials perfectly satisfied? I notice that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) is against sending this Bill to a Select Committee this time. If I remember rightly, the hon. member was the chief opponent of this Bill in 1923.

The old Bill, not this Bill.

Tell me the difference.

There is a big difference.

Let me tell the hon. member that, if he will look up the Votes and Proceedings, he will find that on every clause except one to which exception was taken by the hon. member for Salt River, the Minister, or one or other of his supporters, brought in amendments to meet him.

Clause 23 to start with.

Clause 23 is an entirely new clause.

It is in the old Bill.

It is in the new Bill, too.

The Minister has taken that out.

Suppose it was in the old Bill, what difference does that make? I think the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs did not take the interest in the Bill at that time that the hon. member for Salt River took in it. Every amendment asked for by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) was put on the paper, either by the Minister or by one member or another of this House. If the hon. member for Salt River and his party had supported us, we could have carried the Bill through. There was only one section of the railway employees who did not want the Bill to go through in 1923. If it is so necessary to get it through now without its going to a Select Committee, why did the hon. member for Salt River raise such strenuous objections to it then?

Do you want any more differences? I can give you some more if you want them.

Arising out of clause 4, I would like to ask the Minister why it rests with the Minister himself to be satisfied with the appointments. The Minister himself in 1923 moved that the Governor-General-in-Council should be the one to be satisfied. The Governor-General-in-Council is the Cabinet and not the Minister himself. I should like to ask him also why he is leaving out the clause requiring the birthplace of each person to be mentioned. He knows we opposed that very strongly, and I see he has left it out now.

You ought to be very pleased.

I am, but I should like to know why this very consistent Minister finds it necessary now he is in office to drop some of those things he was so determined upon in 1923. In regard to clause 6, I should like to know why this also is left entirely in the hands of the Minister instead of the Governor-General. It is very much better to leave it to the Governor-General than to the Minister personally. We have on many occasions fought this principle; it is a bad principle. In 1923 it was required that no certificates of permanent employment would be issued to any person not a British subject. He has taken that out of this Bill, and I think we are entitled to some explanation. You are now entitled under this Bill to give certificates of permanent employment to people who are not British subjects.

Clause 4 deals with that point.

Read clause 4.

I am addressing my remarks to the Minister of Railways and Harbours.

I must remind the hon. member speaking that he must address the chair.

May I appeal to you that Ministers do not make foolish interruptions?

Read clause 4.

In regard to the matter of appeal, I want to support the appeal which has been made to the Minister that, in matters of appeal, these men should have the best advice possible. I am not supporting this only because they are railway men, but every person who is being tried, in any circumstances, should have the best possible advice and assistance. I want to join in appealing to the Minister to allow these men—when they come to the point of having to appeal to a board where they have men of perhaps superior education appearing on behalf of the administration and who are well versed in railway affairs—to have legal assistance. I think the Minister supported this view on previous occasions, and I do not know why he has departed from that view now.

Does the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) agree with that?

The Minister knows that on this point I have always differed from the hon. member for Cape Town (Central); besides, he is not the Minister in charge today. When he was the Minister, he gave us the very clearest idea possible as to what his views were. He was perfectly clear and honest about everything he did, and I hope the Minister will follow that example. I appeal to the Minister to send the Bill to the Select Committee. It will not take long, as the Select Committee has nearly finished its other work now. I am sure this would satisfy a large number of employees, who would feel that they can come and give us their views.

There is one point particularly, and one or two others, to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister; because I hope he will deal with them before the committee stage, and it may be that he will consider them suitable for inclusion in the Bill. I would first like to congratulate him on bringing this legislation forward. It is very much behind-hand. The Public Service Act has been on the statute book since 1923, and this Bill, in the ordinary course of events, should have been passed in the same year. It has been a practice, in the past, for the public servants and the railway servants to be dealt with during the same session of Parliament, and it is unfortunate that there has been so much delay. If it had been earlier in the session, I should have favoured its going to the Select Committee, but at this stage it would mean killing the Bill.

No.

There is no doubt about it. The Government has got so much hay on its fork that the financial measures and a few others are about all that can be got through. If this Bill goes to the select committee, it has one chance in a million of getting through—in the language known to the Minister, it is “Dood” for this session. I do not favour the idea, as I do not want to kill the Bill. I would like to say to the Minister that there are certain ways in which he can improve the measure. When I listened to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central)—for whom I have the greatest respect—I could not help thinking that he is very conservative and that his attitude has shown up the virtues of this particular measure. In every respect in which he criticized the Bill he was wrong and the Bill was right. He took a narrow and a very conservative view, and seemed to be horror-struck at the idea of a railway servant being allowed to appear before the board before he was finally dismissed from the service. I have never been able to understand why the railway department places above its portals the notice—

If you are doing the proper thing, you have no need to be afraid of lawyers. It is antedeluvian to prevent a man employing an expert in his defence. There is an old saying that when a man is his own lawyer he has a fool for his client. Why deprive a man of the opportunity of employing an expert to defend him? St. Helena, which I visited some time ago, has no lawyers, but a resident being in serious trouble, he cabled for a lawyer to defend him. I could have told the people there that in South Africa there was a sort of inland island where also there are no lawyers. It is really one of the most absurd things in the world that a man may call to his aid an inexperienced friend, but not a lawyer. This prohibition practically places a stigma on the legal profession. Even in naval and military courts-martial, in times of peace or war, an accused is entitled to legal representation. On account of the irregularities that have taken place in the procedure of the railway authorities in connection with the dismissal of their servants, the Supreme Court has frequently set aside the decisions of the railway department. I agree he should be allowed to have a friend, but if he prefers a lawyer he should be allowed to have him and get the best advice he can under the circumstances. Of course, his friend may be a lawyer, but in the case of a servant in the railway service that could only Happen once in a million times. In any case, if the friend were a lawyer he would have to disguise the fact, otherwise he would not be allowed in. I have always considered this an absurd blot on the Bill. To the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) I would say that if he had a difficulty on the question, say, of customs regulations, would he call in a friend from the street? No, of course he would not, he would call in a lawyer. It is most absurd that the railway department, for a reason I can never understand, should put up a notice—

I can only say with regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) on the provision of double trial, that if a man is tried on one charge and is admitted, and there is another charge under the regulations which could not have been brought in the first charge, then even in the ordinary courts he could have been tried again. Take the case of an assault. Later, it may be found that the assault leads to a more serious result. A man dies. There has been a conviction for common assault, but afterwards there is a charge of culpable homicide. These are different offences. We contend you cannot try a man for the same offence twice, and this is no longer possible under this Bill, so there is an improvement in this respect. Hon. members have referred to the question of three years’ residence and the bilingual clause. In this respect the present Bill is introducing uniformity for the railway servants in exactly the same way that it has been introduced for the public service. Having regard to the fact that we have a large number of men unemployed, we should make a condition of this kind regarding residence. We must give preference to our own people before newcomers. I don’t see what objection can be taken to this provision. There is one other point mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) which shows that the Bill has not been quite carefully or fairly studied. He said the Minister had the right to appoint a person permanently, although he may not be a British subject. If he reads section 4 in conjunction with section 6 he will find that no man can be appointed to a permanent post unless he is a British subject. There is one other thing I would like to ask the Minister to go into, and that is the provision in regard to the re-appointment of pensioners. I want the Minister to carefully consider before the committee stage section 92 (1) of Act 27 of 1923. The question of the appointment of pensioners at a lower rate of pay because they are pensioners has been a very vexed one. One does not object to the appointment of pensioners to a job, provided the pensioner is getting the pay for that job that the job is worth Under the old law the effect was that it paid the Government to employ these pensioners and practically exploit them as against other people who were looking for work. Under the Act of 1923 we laid down that the Government could employ a pensioner, but they had got to pay him the ordinary emoluments and remuneration, except that we provided that the pension might in special cases be abated. There is no similar provision in this Bill, and that is what I want to draw the Minister’s attention to. My attention has been directed to it by a railway pensioner who is at present in employment. He is not allowed to receive more than his old rate of pay, although the particular work he is doing is worth far more than he is getting. It, seems to me that when the Minister is laying down a general principle, making the same laws applicable to the railway service and the public service, that is a point which he should deal with. If you are not going to make similar provision in regard to the employment of pensioners that you have got under the Public Service Act, then you are going to leave the exploitation which had to be dealt with in the Public Service Act of 1923 and which, I hope, in committee, is going to be dealt with in the Act of 1925. I would just conclude by once more saying that I congratulate the Government on introducing a most useful piece of consolidating legislation, and I am sure there will be very little alteration made to it in committee, except on one or two points.

There is one point I want to deal with which I hope the Minister will take into consideration before the committee stage. It is one that affects particularly the harbour servants in my constituency. The Minister has given us the pleasing information that this Bill is practically an agreed Bill and that the conciliation board approve of it, but there is one class of servants who are very disappointed that their case is not dealt with in this Bill. I refer to the case of the workers in the lighters at Algoa Bay, which I have on several occasions brought before the Minister. These men, on account of the special nature of their work, although that work is necessarily somewhat casual, because you cannot use the lighters unless there are ships to discharge, have been guaranteed 10 days’ work in a month, and they claim—and I think rightly—seeing that they have a guaranteed number of days in the month, that they should not be treated as casual labourers. They have to parade every morning at six o’clock for the boat crews to be selected and to be told whether there is work for them or not, which prevents their taking other regular work. The administration felt it advisable that there should be this ten days’ guarantee as this is specialized work and special knowledge is required, and the men have been in hopes that under this Bill their case would be dealt with; they would be allowed to be contributors to the fund and to get the other privileges that appertain to permanent servants. I understand from the Minister that as the Bill now stands their case is not met, and I hope before it goes to committee the Minister will consider the matter and deal with these men in a manner that is fair. They have been given to understand that their case would be dealt with, and they are extremely disappointed that it is not dealt with in this Bill.

This Bill has, so far, not been seriously criticized by the Opposition and it seems to me that the only matter which is urged is that it should go to a Select Committee. It appears clear from the speech of the hon. Minister that this matter has already been fully discussed with the conciliation board. As a representative of one of the largest railway constituencies, perhaps the largest in the Union, where there are all classes of workers, I can testify that after the publication of this Bill I took the trouble of getting into touch with the respective trade unions of the railway servants. I asked them to go into the Bill carefully and then to make representations to me upon their wishes. I received three letters in reply. The one shows a certain nervousness about the language provisions which is, however, unfounded. The other two are from prominent people, and they are satisfied with the Bill except for a few unimportant subdivisions. With a view hereto and also to the fact that the conciliation board is satisfied with this Bill, and with the general satisfaction, it seems to me that it is quite unnecessary to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. We have further to do with the fact that there are already a large number of Select Committees, and as hon. members opposite have said, some of the committees will not have completed their work by the end of the session. If the Opposition are, therefore, in earnest, in wishing this Bill placed on the statute book they will show the best service to the railway staff in not having this matter referred to a Select Committee. We can dispose of the matter in committee of the whole House. It is quite clear to me that what is said in these letters is the general opinion, viz., that this Bill goes very far to increase security in the railway service and will thereby increase the efficiency of the service. I am glad about it because I feel very strongly that if satisfaction is brought, about then the efficiency of the service will also be increased above what it is at present. The visitors from abroad admit that our railway service is effective and I am convinced that we will improve this in a great measure if this Bill is passed because it is intended to increase contentment in the service. I shall not detain the House long because the nature of the Bill is such that it can best be discussed in committee. It is almost a series of regulations and it is not a matter of large principles. Together with other members I want to urge that the Bill on superannuation and pension fund shall also be passed this session. The staff feel almost more strongly about that than about this Bill. In connection with the permanent appointments I am certain a rule which is now being laid down will give general satisfaction. I have received may representations about the matter and most of the difficulties are now being removed. In connection with the difficulty which is mentioned in connection with persons who have to retire at a certain age I want to point out that in the past dissatisfaction existed in this connection among the firemen. Many of them have served long as firemen and they were entitled to be promoted to the rank of driver. But they were stopped in their progress because people remained in the service who were over age. The Minister has mentioned difficulties in connection with the use of an attorney who could give assistance when a person is tried by the railway administration for a breach of regulation. I should like the Minister to reconsider this matter. I have experience of such cases and I can support what has been said here by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) that it is extremely difficult to expect a railway official who has not a special knowledge of the regulations to be able to act in his own defence before a board which, in many cases, is composed of men who have an absolutely full knowledge of all the regulations. It is a serious matter because it means the bread and butter of the men who are being tried, and if he is not given an opportunity of properly defending his case, then it may be that an injustice may be done to him. In connection with a double trial I want to say that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) does not understand the position well. The difference which the Minister has pointed out is clear. There is one matter about which no provision has been made, and that is where a person has died in the service with leave due to him. The request is that it shall be paid out to his widow. It is regarded as a kind of assurance, and the feeling is that it ought to be provided for in the Bill. The hon. member for Salt River also mentioned a case about which I asked a question at the last session, namely, the entrance examination for learners. The Minister said that provision would be made to make them easier. I have again a set of questions before me and I should like to know how many hon. members of the House would be able to immediately obtain a good percentage of marks in them. The general questions are such that I do not know how the children can answer them. They set a kind of cross word puzzle where the children have to fill in figures to complete a sum. That is not the class of question which such children should be expected to answer. The Minister must reconsider the matter. In connection with the criticism of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) I see that he objects to section 3 in connection with the reduction of wages. I do not know what his object with that is that the Minister should have the right to reduce the wages of some and to leave those of others untouched. Difference in treatment creates more dissatisfaction than anything else and our object should particularly be to treat everybody alike in any alterations. Further, he mentioned difficulties in connection with the reduction of tariffs. As a representative from the country I also feel strongly about it, but I must honestly say that I should be sorry if the tariffs were reduced at the expense of the staff. He said that the railway staff were a privileged class. I do not think that they have reasons for complaint, but it is too much to say that they are a privileged class. People outside the service say so, but those who come into contact with them know that the railway servant also has his difficulties and that he also finds it hard to make a living. I am certain that the railway servants in general are satisfied with the Bill, and, therefore, I hope that members will not insist upon it being sent to a Select Committee.

I would also like to congratulate the Minister on the introduction of the Bill, which I consider a very good one. I am one of those who felt very strongly that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. I feel on matters affecting the staff the men should have every opportunity of placing their views before us. Seeing that there is some doubt that by referring this matter to a Select Committee we might kill the Bill. I certainly feel, as one of those who know what a great interest the staff takes in this particular Bill, that it would be a dangerous procedure, and one I hope will not be adopted. There are one or two points raised which I want to support. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) raised an important point in regard to the question of those men who are about to retire from the service, and if the promised Superannuation Bill is not brought forward and does not become law this session, they will not receive the benefits of that Bill. I do hope the Minister will take into consideration their cases and give them an opportunity of remaining in the service so that they will be able to qualify for membership of the new Superannuation Fund. There is also another point raised, first by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), and also by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), and that is in regard to the question of any member of the service having a member of the legal fraternity to assist him should he so desire when charged under the regulations. I feel in this matter that allowing the assistance of some legal gentleman would only be doing the right thing, and I trust the Minister will very seriously consider this aspect of the case. There is another matter brought forward by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), and that is a question of the harbour servants. This is a class of railway and harbour servant which has not many champions in this House, and the Minister would only be doing these men a bare act of justice if he takes into consideration the remarks of the hon. member.

I would have liked to have seen the second reading of this Bill go through to-night. That not being possible now, I move—

Agreed to; House to resume in Committee on Monday.