as Chairman, brought up the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

Report and evidence to be printed and considered on Wednesday.

I have to announce that notice of objection to the adoption of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements, presented to this House on the 3rd instant, having been handed to me by the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter), it now becomes necessary for a date to be fixed for the consideration of the Report.

Report to be considered on 22nd June.

On behalf of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, I beg to move—

I understand that this is practically an agreed Bill. It is a matter that will affect a certain number of young men who will, during the course of the year, be able to be certificated if this Bill is passed.

seconded.

Motion put and agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Certificates of Competency) Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 12th June.

I move—

Hon. members will have noticed that, as I indicated on a previous occasion, while under the Bill of 1912 we had one Bill dealing with service conditions of our railway and harbour employees, we now have two Bills. The one is the Bill we have just passed dealing purely with service conditions, and the other is that now before the House, which I am asking to be read a second time, dealing with the superannuation or pension benefit of our servants. At first blush it may appear that this measure is a very complicated one, and that members may have some difficulty in understanding it, but I trust in the few remarks I desire to make, if hon. members will give me their attention, that I will be able, without unduly burdening the House with too many details, to deal with the measure in such a way that the House will be able to understand the outstanding points in this very important measure. The question which probably will be asked is why have a new service Bill and why have a new superannuation Bill. With regard to the necessity of a new service Bill, I have already dealt with that, and as regards the necessity for a new superannuation Bill, I think it must be clear to all hon. members who come into contact with our railway and harbour servants all over the country that there has been a very strong feeling on the part of the servants that pension benefits under the existing 1912 fund are insufficient and the time has come when the whole matter should be dealt with. If one takes into consideration the changes with regard to conditions of service, the different wages which are being paid at the present time, and the modern ideas which have developed with regard to the whole of our railway service, it seems to me that the time has come when these wishes of our staff should be met, and that we should have a modern, up-to-date, superannuation fund, which will deal with the wishes of our railway servants in such a manner that they will feel that, as regards their service to the State, their interests, as regards benefits when they go on pension, are sufficiently protected. In order that hon. members may be able to follow this Bill, and the remarks which I wish to make, I wish hon. members to bear three main principles in mind. I shall deal with three aspects of the question. The first point is the question of pre-Union funds. The Civil Service pension fund, the Transferred Servants pension fund; the Natal civil servants; and the Natal public employees’ superannuation funds. These four funds are what I call pre-Union funds, and these were closed at the time of Union and are dealt with in this Bill. As a matter of fact they are dealt with as closed funds, and funds to which, to a very large extent, this Bill does not refer. I wish to say a few words about the pre-Union funds. The position of these funds is as follows: We have in these four funds 1,870 members. These were guaranteed funds in this way: that the pensions are secured to the servants who are members, and consequently the administration must make good the deficit from time to time. It will interest hon. members if I say that in regard to these pre-Union funds, we have had to take from Revenue—and this is very important from the point of view of the reality of the deficit in the 1912 fund, the second point to which I wish to refer—up to the 31st March, 1924, £740,000 in round figures in order to stabilize that fund, to prevent its going insolvent, and notwithstanding that these pre-Union funds absorbed that amount, unfortunately the present financial position of this fund, at the last actuarial valuation, disclosed a deficit of £1,962,399. That refers to these pre-Union funds, and we are in this unfortunate position that while in the past we have contributed an amount of £83,000 to £100,000 per annum towards the deficit in these funds, we were faced this year with the prospect of the fund going insolvent—and that would mean general revenue would have to find it, because these funds are guaranteed funds. Rather than do that, hon. members will remember that the contribution towards this deficit was increased from £83,700 to £162,000, and when hon. members refer to the Estimates, they must bear in mind that this amount of £162,000 which we contribute from Revenue this year refers to pre-Union funds, and is a contribution towards that deficit which we hope to wipe off by the year 1942. Hon. members will realize that it cannot be expected that the railway administration will find the money for the whole deficit £1,962,399) in one year; so we are bound to take it over a period of years. I now come to the second clause, which deals with the superannuation fund created under the 1912 Act. This fund has a membership of 25,925, of whom 5,860 are officers and 18,065 daily-paid men or employees. It will also be remembered that out of the number of railway servants 23,000 belong to the 1912 superannuation fund, and that there are thousands of servants who, unfortunately, are not members, of any funds. These must be borne in mind in addition to the 1,870 in the pre-Union funds. The 1912 fund came into being as a result of the fund established by the Central South African railways, a pre-Union railway in the Transvaal. In 1909 a superannuation fund was created in connection with this railway, but that fund was based on the experience of two English companies’ superannuation funds. They took those English funds as the basis on which they calculated the benefits and fixed the contributions by members, and to make the matter worse, as will appear a little later, the Cape and Natal Governments followed suit, the Cape Government in 1910 and the Natal Government practically in the same year, and in creating funds, adopted the same basis as the C.S.A.R. had done. That was a mistake, as one sees to-day, with the experience we have had with regard to withdrawals, death experience, the question of retirement, and the salaries and wages paid in South Africa. It is quite clear that a mistake was made here, and that the experience which should have been taken was that of the S.A. Railways at that time. In 1912, the Central South African railways superannuation fund, the Natal fund which had come into being in 1910, and the Cape fund, were amalgamated, and we got what is now known as the Superannuation Fund of 1912. The outstanding point with regard to that fund was that all members of the Railways and Harbours staff who came on to the permanent staff—but only those—were forced to become members of that superannuation fund. They could ante-date for previous service; but it was an option and nothing more, and those on the temporary staff could not become members. That is to say, after 1912 it was confined to permanent employees. It is known to the House, and I noted not labour the point, that unfortunately the history of that fund has been most unfortunate as regards the question of its solvency, and the benefits which have been paid out to members. The deficits grew from £154,855 on June 30th 1914, to £1,854.160 on March 31, 1919, to £1,944,600 on March 31st, 1924, and at the present time it is calculated that the deficit is £2,115,000, so that hon. members will see that the position of our 1912 superannuation fund is a very critical one. Let me deal with the causes which have given rise to this unfortunate position as regards the 1912 fund. The outstanding reason, undoubtedly, is that the contributions of 3 per cent. were on too low a scale, and the result is that the fund has got into this unfortunate position. In addition to the 3 per cent. contributed by the servants, they had the option of paying an additional 2 per cent. if they were over 30 years of age, and that undoubtedly makes the position even worse. It really comes to this, that the benefits given under the 1912 fund were too great, and that the contributions paid by the members of the staff, to which the administration contributed on the £ for £ basis, were too small to provide the benefits which the railway servants have received. There are other causes which I may mention. One was certainly that the fund had been based on the undertaking that the servants would retire at the age of 64, but in actual practice the bulk of them were retired at the age of 60. Then there was the abnormal increase of wages paid as the result of the Graham Commission’s report in 1919, which also upset the conditions which had been contemplated by those who started the fund. The third reason was that the mortality experienced was far more unfavourable to the fund than had been anticipated, although favourable to South African life and conditions. In other words, our servants lived far longer than was expected. We were very pleased that that was so, but from the point of view of the solvency of the fund that had a very serious effect. The final, and perhaps the chief, reason for the present state of affairs was that no steps were taken to deal with the position which had arisen. I wish to repeat what I said on a former occasion, that I do not want to blame my predecessor in office, who had to deal with this question in 1921. Certainly it cannot be denied that both as regards our pre-Union and 1912 funds the position should have been faced by the administration at a far earlier date. On the one hand you have a deficit of close on £4,000,000 staring you in the face, and on the other hand you have the grievance of the railway servants that the benefits they received from the funds are insufficient. My hon. friend, I know, took very careful stock of the whole position, and probably if it had not been that the financial position of the railways at that time was so serious he would have taken steps to deal with the position. But the position was not dealt with Let me be quite just to my hon. friend. The position was partly dealt with, and the result of that is reflected in the figures I have already given. The reason that the growth of the deficit since 1919 was not bigger was because the rate of interest paid by the administration to the fund was increased from 4 per cent. to 4½ per cent., and that had the effect of curtailing the growth of the deficit. Now let me say a word with regard to the reality of the deficit. I know there are many railway servants who find the greatest difficulty in understanding this deficit. They say—

The staff say—

They state that this deficit is all imaginary—

This country, unfortunately, has had experience that these actuarial deficits are very real deficits; we had that with the pre-Union pension funds. So that I think that those hon. members who may be inclined to think that this deficit is not real, should get that idea out of their minds, and admit that in these matters we are bound to be guided by the actuary. He is a man who is qualified to deal with these subjects, and when we talk about a big balance we must not forget that a fund like this has claims, and when they are considered it must be realized by our railway servants that there is a real deficit which must be faced. Now, sir, whatever doubt the staff may have as to our actuary, Mr. Fraser, personally I have the very fullest confidence in him; I think he is one of our outstanding actuaries in this country. But whatever doubt there may have been that Mr. Fraser was over-conservative has been totally dissipated by the valuation made independently by Mr. Thomas. There was strong pressure for the appointment of an independent actuary, and Mr. Thomas was nominated by the elected side of the Superannuation Committee, and Mr. Thomas absolutely and fully confirmed all the figures of Mr. Fraser; so there can be no question that this deficit is a real one. In dealing with the whole position we must deal with this accumulated deficit as if it were there. Now I come to, the question of the disposal of this deficit of £1,944.600. I want to refer hon. members to the terms of the Act of 1912 dealing with this question of the superannuation fund. Hon. members will see it is there laid down in section 60, sub-section 2, how the surplus is to be dealt with, and it is also stated there, not to a definite extent, but it is dealt with, as to how the deficit should be dealt with. I shall not waste time dealing with a possible surplus because there is none. I will read the terms of the Act. It is there laid down—

Under the terms of this Act there is not the least doubt that the administration could not, if so advised, have asked the members to pay increased contributions, or to have their pensions reduced in order to wipe out the deficit. That fact will be an indication to hon. members of the difficulty in which the administration was placed. I have no doubt the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), when he dealt with the matter, was in the same position as to deciding what to do with the accumulated deficit of £2,000,000. The Government has given careful consideration to the matter, and has come to the conclusion, in the interests of the satisfactory running of the railway system, that we should shoulder the burden of this accumulated deficit, and that we should not ask the railway servants to share in the burden. If the House agrees to the proposition. I think they will agree it will be a liberal treatment by the country of the railway servants. It will be difficult to say that the railway servants are responsible for the position, or that the administration is responsible. It is a joint responsibility, but it is best in the interests of the railways that this matter should be considered a closed book, so far as the administration is concerned, and that the Government should take full responsibility for the deficit. I want to say a few words with regard to the members in the old fund before I proceed to the third subject, namely, the new fund. The position of those members of the staff who are in the old fund is this. They receive under the terms of this Bill an option to transfer to the new fund. If they do it will be at their own free will, and I think the majority of them will desire to transfer in view of the increased benefits they would receive. They will have the option to remain in the old fund, if they think their interests are better served by so doing, but it would not be equitable for the members of the railway administration who are in the old fund to remain in that fund, to continue paying the contribution they have been paying up to the present, namely. 3 per cent., or if they took the option of contributing the additional 2 per cent. to get the increased benefit, the total then is 5 per cent. It must be admitted if these members of the railway administration remain in the old fund they cannot expect to get the benefits secured under the Act of 1912 if they don’t pay increased contributions. They cannot have it both ways. They must either transfer to the new fund where the contributions are increased, or if they remain in the old fund they must be prepared to pay the extra contributions to place the fund in a solvent position. The actuary has decided that those who remain in the old fund will in future have to contribute 3¾ per cent., and those who contributed the extra 2 per cent. previously will also have to contribute proportionately more on that. They will get additional benefits in the old fund, because the benefits in the new fund have been extended. I mention one. Members who retire on pension can commute it and get it in one sum, that is pensions up to £25. Under the new Act they can commute pensions up to £36 per annum. There is a new benefit that a servant may, on retirement, commute one-third of his pension if it is more than £36, but if it is the same or less, he can commute the whole. I want to say I hope the railway servants will realize their interests are better served by transferring to the new fund, and if they do they will find their pensions will be better. Of course there are servants who, by remaining in the old fund, will possibly be better off, and under those circumstances one would not expect them to transfer to the new fund. I now come to the new fund. The scheme of the new fund which is proposed is of the greatest interest to the railway servants, as it will disclose to them what the new benefits are. Let me add that the 1912 fund will be closed to new entrants to the railway service. They will not be allowed to contribute to the old fund, but it will be obligatory on them to contribute to the new fund. Coming now to the new fund, I want to reply to the question asked on many occasions, and which will be asked again “Why have a new fund; why not re-construct the old fund”? I want to give a few of the reasons why it was necessary that we should have a totally new fund, and the first reason undoubtedly is that the pension scale under the old fund is on too low a basis. The conditions in 1909 and 1912 are now changed in this country. The cost of living at the present time has increased to a large extent and indications do not point in the direction of a big fall in the cost of living, so that pensions in 1908 and 1912 were considered to be inadequate under the changed conditions of to-day. It was therefore necessary that the whole question should be dealt with on a different basis. It will be remembered in 1920, how the select committee dealing with pension grants and gratuities were flooded with petitions from railway servants. The position became so serious that the House in 1920 appointed a select committee to go into the whole question of the sufficiency of our pensions. That select committee brought up a report. It said, amongst other things, that the subject was a very complex one, it was difficult to deal with in the short time they had at their disposal and they thought at that time they could not deal with the whole question and in any case it was a matter for the administration to deal with. They made two important recommendations, both of which were carried out by the administration at that time. They recommended that the interest payable by the administration on the credit balance of the fund should be increased from 4 to 4½ per cent. and they also recommended that an independent actuary should be appointed. As I say, both these were adopted and, as a result of the second recommendation, Mr. Thomas was appointed as independent actuary by the men. They also made very important recommendations in regard to the financial part of the whole scheme, but, as I have already indicated, the administration had at that time its own difficulties in regard to the financial position and the matter was not dealt with. At the same time the matter had not been lost sight of, because I find that in June, 1924—I do not suggest, of course, that the pending elections had anything to do with it—the then Prime Minister at Durban said—

I might say that I agree with the right hon. gentleman (Gen. Smuts). I find that my predecessor also issued a pamphlet in June, 1924, in which he indicated that in his opinion the time had arrived when the matter should be dealt with. I am in cordial agreement with the pamphlet of 1924. I do not suggest that the election had anything to do with it. Much time has been given to the consideration of this difficult and complicated question and we had the greatest difficulty in order to get the interests of the different sections of the staff coordinated. You had the clash of interests between the salaried men and the daily-paid men, and it was difficult to find a scheme which was satisfactory to all of them, but Mr. Fraser and other officers who have rendered loyal service in this whole matter and the staff organizations were consulted and, as a result of consultation and close scrutiny by the actuary from time to time of the different suggestions, this new scheme has been evolved and I make bold to say that this scheme as now laid before the House is a satisfactory one and that it will meet the wishes of all of our servants to a very large extent. I am glad to say that, after the fullest consideration of the draft Bill, which was circulated as the Service Bill was, to all staff organizations and they were asked to make their comments on it, as far as the pension committee is concerned we have got agreement. Hon. members will know that the pensions committee consists of five nominated and five elected members. They have approved of the terms of this Bill. Unfortunately, I cannot go so far as to say that all the staff organizations are entirely satisfied. As far as they are concerned, there are still points which they think have not been sufficiently met, but it would be difficult for the Government and for the administration to proceed further than we have gone. When we come to the financial provisions I think hon. members will agree that we have gone very far indeed to meet the wishes of the service.

Is it on sound lines? That’s the question.

Yes, it is on sound lines. Let me say at once that this scheme which I am now going to outline is one that has been evolved by the actuary and the senior officers and is a perfectly sound one from the actuarial point of view. In view of the fact that we are not only shouldering the deficit in the fund, but we are guaranteeing the solvency of this fund in the future, both the old fund and the new fund, hon. members will realize that, as responsible Minister, I wished to introduce a Bill to the House which will avoid a repetition of the unfortunate experience which we have had in the past. Our staff have realized that increased contributions must be paid by them; it will cost us an additional amount of money, but I want to say here that it is sound, actuarially sound.

That was said of the first scheme.

That is so, but it must be remembered that the actuary at that time had very little experience of the working of our railway system, and in this case we have an actuary who has made a close study of it. This also ought to be said for the former actuary, that our present actuary has had the benefit of the experience of the working of these funds since Union. I want to lay stress on this point, that hon. members must realize that, if we were now at this stage to tamper with the terms of this scheme, it would endanger the whole solvency of the scheme. I would be prepared to consider suggestions in the way of amendments, but I want to lay stress on this, that as regards the financial provisions it must be realized that these cannot be tampered with. I hope hon. members will bear with me when I deal with some of the particulars of the scheme and give me their attention, because there may be some of these matters which some of them may find difficult to follow. We have made several changes of great importance. Let me deal with some of the most important. While in the past the pension paid to a man who retired was based on the whole period of his service while in the service, we have now adopted the terminal basis for the last seven years of his service. In the past, when a man retired on reaching the retiring age, we took the average earnings of the whole period of his service. If he had served for 40 years, we took the average earnings during those forty years and his pension was calculated on that average. We have now adopted the terminal basis, based on the average earnings of the last seven years, so that if a man retires at 60 this scheme will take his average earnings for the last seven years, and his pension will then be calculated on the average earnings for that period. That is a very important and very material change. It means increased pensions, because the last seven years of a man’s service is naturally the best paid period, so that, by adopting the terminal basis instead of the whole average basis, we have been able to increase the pensions of our servants to a very material extent. To those servants who think they will be best served by taking the whole average basis, we give the option of doing so. It is true we say that the terminal basis is the best, but if any servant thinks the average basis is more to his advantage we give him the option of having it. I, personally, think all our servants would be much better served by the terminal basis. Take the case of the artizans to which my friend has referred. Ten years ago they were not getting the wages they are getting to-day, so those men certainly would not be better off under the average scheme. If you have no increase in wages in the next forty years, the men may be better off with the average basis, but in regard to these matters, “sufficient unto the day”! Another point we have aimed at, and I think we have achieved, is that we have made it much more simple for our servants to understand what their benefits are. Undoubtedly the old scheme, good as it was in parts, was very difficult to understand and follow, and it seems to me that it must be generally admitted that the new scheme is far more clear and gives the servants a far better opportunity of understanding the whole scheme. Another point which is important is that, under this scheme servants who leave the service have their benefits very materially increased. A third point is that, under this scheme, the servants know just what their contributions are to be from time to time, and they can also clearly see what they are to get when they reach the retiring age, and this is a very important thing for them to know. I have already referred to a further feature of this new scheme, an important feature, and that is that the administration guarantees the solvency of the fund. You have fluctuations from time to time. In the past you had uncertainty which was very upsetting to the staff. You had a valuation every five years, and the staff knew there was a deficiency and never knew what the next valuation would disclose. The whole position was unsatisfactory, and, instead of the pensions scheme helping and assisting the servants, it had the opposite effect. There was a feeling of insecurity on the part of the staff. Now the administration guarantees the solvency of the fund and every railway servant now knows whatever fluctuations may take place he will receive his pension when he retires. He gets security, which is the great thing we want to give our public servants, that they should feel in regard to this provision they are making and which we are helping them to make for their old age, that it is stable and secure. I now come to the basis of contributions, which, of course, from the staff point of view, is important, but is also important from the point of view of the administration, because for every £1 the employee contributes we contribute another £1. The whole basis of the scheme is the £ for £ basis. If hon. members will refer to Clause 8 of the Bill, they will see what the contributions are that are laid down. This is rather important, and I would ask hon. members to give it attention. They will see that every member who is an officer shall, so long as he remains a servant, contribute at the age not exceeding 21 years, at the date from which the contributions are payable, 4 per cent, of his pensionable emoluments as against the existing 3 per cent. Over 21, but not exceeding 27 years, the contribution is 4½ per cent., and so on, up to the case of a man over 39 years, who contributes 6 per cent. Hon. members will see that the employees contribute on a lower basis. At an age not exceeding 21 the contribution is 3½ per cent.; over 21, but not exceeding 27, 4 per cent.; over 27 but not exceeding 33, four-and-a-half per cent.; over 33 but not exceeding 39, five per cent.; over 39 but not exceeding 45, five-and-a-half per cent., and over 45 six per cent. Hon. members will see that the position of the daily-paid man is further met in clause 11. That is important, and I want to stress this point in anticipation, possibly, of what may come and of what may be asked by hon. members. I hope hon. members will take the long view. I know there is strong pressure on the part of the daily-paid men to contribute on overtime. Yes, I thought I heard someone say “Hear, hear.” but I hope it will go no further than that. Of course, the artizans say, “We want to contribute on the bonuses which we receive on piece-work.” I must say that there is much to be said for that, but I think if the matter is fully considered it would be realized that it is unjust—and this is my deliberate opinion—if we were to allow our artizans and other employees earning overtime and Sunday time to contribute on that time, because it must be obvious to members that this would be unfair to those employees who are stationed in places or in departments of the work where they have not the opportunity to earn overtime or a bonus. The artizan who is in the position of earning 25 per cent. bonus over and above his basic rate of pay may be earning altogether as much as 21s. to 25s. a day. Take the case of a running-man in Johannesburg: There is a dense traffic, and he is in the position of earning much more than his basic rate of pay every month. He can make provision for his old age over and above what he is receiving as his basic rate of pay: but compare that with the position of the man on the branch line or small station who is doing responsible work but is not in the position to earn overtime and bonuses. It seems to me it would be unjust. It would penalize these men who cannot contribute on any overtime because they have not the opportunity of earning it if we were to allow the men who are in a far better position to contribute on their overtime earnings. But at the same time I felt that it was necessary to deal with the position of the daily-paid man in a sympathetic manner, and I trust that the solution of this difficulty—because undoubtedly it is a very great difficulty, and our staff feel very strongly on it—and the compromise which has been arrived at and is embodied in this Bill, will commend itself to the House. I think even the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) will agree that it is a fair compromise, that while our daily-paid men receive pay for 26 days per month, we, in this Bill, allow them to contribute as if they were working 29 days. In other words, We give to these men the opportunity, for pension purposes, to contribute on an additional three days. Now the case of the branch line man is met and the man who is not in a position to earn bonus or overtime, because he is now allowed to contribute on three extra days, and in the case of the man who is more fortunate, he is still in a position to earn overtime and bonus, and can lay money aside, if he is wise, and at the same time is placed in the same position as all daily-paid men. I may say that while this is going to cost us quite an additional little sum, I was prepared to face that, and ask the House to accept that, because I think it meets the case of these daily-paid men. The House will be glad to hear that this additional three days means an additional pension of 11.538 per cent., practically 12 per cent. over and above their pension on a basis of 26 days. I hope I have made that clear and that hon. members will agree that the position has been fully met. Another important principle in this Bill is that even although there be a reduction in wages for some cause or another, a servant will still be entitled to contribute on the old rate of pay. In other words, he may temporarily be placed on work with a lower rate of pay, but that will not prevent him from contributing on the old rate. So that his pension will not be affected by any temporary arrangement by which he gets less pay. There are certain small points I want to deal with in passing. Under the new scheme, breaks in service may be condoned up to three years instead of one year, as previously. That is to say the superannuation fund committee will now be able to condone breaks of three years. Another point dealt with is that all servants who join the fund will be able to antedate to the original date of joining the service if they were 16 years of age, and this is most important. There are a large number of servants who have never exercised the option under the 1912 Act, and when they retire they come to the administration and say, “We are stranded. We have worked the whole of our lives on the railway, but we were not members of any fund, and we are stranded, and you must help us.” I may say that the most pitiful cases have come under my notice. We help as much as we can by gratuities from the charitable fund, but the position still remains most unsatisfactory, and under this scheme the option will be given to all servants who are eligible to join the new scheme and share in the benefits. Not only can they join when they join the service, but can ante-date their contributions to the time they joined the service. I may also say that service in previous administrations in the Transvaal, Free State, and Natal can count. That is to say they can cover the whole period of their service. If they cannot contribute the whole amount, the committee will be prepared to meet them by allowing them to pay in instalments, and, even after they go on pension, to make deductions, from time to time, to cover whatever arrears there may be. Another benefit already referred to in connection with the 1912 fund, is that pensioners will be able to commute their pension if under £36, and one-third of their pension. Another point is that female employees will also be able to contribute to the fund in the same way as males. I am sure there will be no opposition from any side of the House to this provision. I now come to the financial provisions and the management of the scheme. I would like to give a few figures showing what this is going to cost the administration. The management of both funds will be given to the Superannuation Fund Committee. Hon. members will see that the Bill lays down how this committee is to be constituted, namely, 5 elected and 5 nominated members; so that the employees themselves will have the opportunity of joining with the administration, through the nominated members, in administering this fund. I am bound to admit, and it is just as well that our railway servants should know, that the scheme is going to cost the country quite an additional sum of money, and they should realize that, that being the case, the country and the users of the railway have a right to receive their very best services, and they should be prepared, at all times, to serve South Africa. I have already indicated, in my budget statement, that in order to liquidate this deficit of £1,962,399, we are contributing £100,000 over and above our usual contribution, to wipe off that deficit. The additional contributions which the Administration will have to pay under the new scheme amount to £78,000. That is, of course, for the present membership. There is a further amount for new entrants, for you will have quite a large number of additional entrants now, and that we calculate will cost £20,000. So that the total cost will be £198,000. We already contribute on the £ for £ basis to our existing funds £275,000 in round figures, and I have indicated in the course of my address now that we are contributing £162,000 to the deficit in the pre-Union funds, which make a total of £437,000 expenditure on present funds.

What is the present £ for £ contribution?

£275,000; so that with the extra expenditure on the new proposals, £98,000, and the additional contribution of £100,000 to the deficiency on the superannuation fund, this makes a total of £635,000. Over and above that we are contributing out of revenue for pensions and compensation and things of that sort another £112.000, so that I think the House will agree that we are certainly dealing with our railway and harbour servants in a very liberal manner. Another important point is that all servants, whether in temporary or permanent employment, will be bound to join the fund, excepting those who are casually employed or under special contract. All other servants over 16 years of age must contribute to this fund, and it will be recognized that that should be so, because when a man is placed on the permanent establishment he is very often in the position that he has spent the money, and he finds it very difficult to ante-date his payments to the date when he joined the service. I need hardly say that steps will be taken by the administration from time to time to review the position, because it must be clear that now that we are responsible for the deficit and the solvency of the fund we must review the position and see that the interests of the administration are fully protected. Provision is made in the Bill for a valuation. I am sorry I have kept the House so long, but there are just two other important matters I wish to refer to, one being our old friend the strike clause.

Your predecessor’s friend.

I have taken it over. The insertion of a strike clause is a very necessary and salutary measure. I have dealt with the matter possibly in a different way to what my hon. friend there would have dealt with it. The strike clause No. 30 is as follows—

The position is that under section 30 if a body of servants go on strike then they are automatically dismissed from the service. If Parliament in its wisdom passes an Act—as Parliament has always done—admitting the men back to the service, then they are in this position. If they are reinstated within the period stated by Parliament they have their contributions in the fund intact, for they did not receive those contributions when they went on strike. But there is the case of a man who has gone on strike and is not re-engaged for some reason or other. The administration may have very good reasons for not re-engaging and that man did not get a refund of his contribution, and that has been a very sore point with the staff. They say that if a man is charged with theft and is dismissed he gets a refund of his contributions, but if he goes on strike he loses his contributions. I must say I have much sympathy with that point of view. If within three months of the termination of an industrial strike, the men are not re-employed, then they get a refund of their contributions to the superannuation fund. It seems to me that is fair. I have heard it said that the men who are not re-employed will be in a better position than the men who are re-employed, because in the case of the latter, there is nothing to indicate that they will get their contributions back. In actual practice, however, Parliament—although I hope Parliament will never have to deal with the question again—condones the break of service, and then there is no difficulty as regards the men who are re-employed. It may be argued that Parliament may not be sitting at the time, and that in the meantime the men who are taken back should have their contributions to the pension fund re-paid them. But I think that would be quite wrong, for when the men are officially reinstated it would be found that they had spent the money on other purposes. We have had very unfortunate experience of that in the past. The section is a very fair one, and protects the men because their contributions remain safely in the fund, and when Parliament has condoned their action the men concerned simply proceed to pay the additional contributions for their further service. Perhaps it would be better if I gave a concrete pension case. A young man entering the service at age 16 when he retires at age 60 will, under the new scheme, receive 44-60ths of his average pensionable emoluments in the last seven years of his service. Take a man who between the ages of 54 to 60 has earned £600 per annum, and who is in the service at age 20 and retires at 60 with 40 years’ service, will, under the new scheme be entitled to a pension of 40-60ths of his salary, that is he will retire with a pension of £400. I think the House will agree that is a fair pension and that under this scheme the claims of our railway and harbour servants have been fairly met. The railway administration is a big undertaking. The men who serve in the railway administration are servants of the people of South Africa and the servants of the State and I hope they will realize they are serving South Africa and all sections of the community, and that the healthy spirit there has been in the service in the past will be developed in the future and that our railway servants will realize that when Parliament is prepared to give these benefits and is prepared to pay handsomely, that the people of South Africa have a right to expect the very best service from the railway and harbour servants and that we may be assured that the high tradition which attaches to the railway service and administration will continue to exist. The terms of this Bill, liberal as they are, I do not think are unfair to the users of the railways, and I hope it will make servants realize that the people of South Africa will always be fair, just and reasonable to our railway servants who are doing this great work for us. The question has been asked as to whether I intend moving that this Bill be referred to a select committee. It would be as well for me to refer to that. I have given consideration to this question of referring the Bill to a select committee. At one time I thought the interests of the railway servants would be better served by not sending it to a select committee but by dealing with the Bill in the House. I have, however, come to the conclusion that it would be better to send it to a select committee with an instruction that they should not take evidence over a very wide area but from one or two nominees from the staff organizations and that it be an instruction to the committee to report to the House at an early date. This session must not pass without this Bill going on the statute book. I therefore suggest the Bill be referred to a select committee on railways and harbours with instructions to report the Bill at an early date. I move the second reading.

I agree with the Minister as to the necessity of this Bill. For one reason it makes the position as regards superannuation sound. As far as I can judge, and I have read the report of the actuaries, it is clear to me the superannuation fund of 1912 has been unsound from the very start. At every period we have made actuarial valuations, in 1914, 1919 and 1924, each has shown a deficit and an increasing deficit. My hon. friend raised the question, when the deficit of 1919 was shown, why the then Government did not deal with it. I can answer that very easily. I have here the report of the actuary and he says—

The report of 1924 covered a period approached nearer normal conditions; the first part of the period when everything was booming, the second part when severe depression set in, consequently, conditions were much more likely to approximate more nearly to the normal than for many years. We also had the position that we were not in the same financial position that the hon. Minister is at the present moment. We did the next best thing. We agreed to raise the rate of interest on the fund from 4 to 4½ per cent., which has improved the position a little over half a million pounds. My hon. friend has pointed out that the old superannuation fund is closed, but that those still remaining in it will have to increase their subscription from 3 to 3¾ per cent. I think he is absolutely right in endeavouring to keep that fund, starting from now, in a sound position. I don’t quite understand why, although this fund is in an insolvent condition he has increased the benefits from it considerably. Clause 49 shows an increase in benefits. There he proposes that if a man retires from the service before superannuation he shall become entitled to a refund equal to the amount of his own contributions, plus 10 per cent. of such amount in respect of each complete year for which he has contributed in excess of thirteen years. In the old fund that 10 per cent. was not given. In Clause 62 there is also an increase. Clause 62 reads—

46. A servant who is a member of the fund, shall, if his employment is terminated on superannuation before he has been a member for 10 years, be entitled to a refund equal to the amount of his own contributions, plus 2½ per cent. of such amount for each complete year for which he has contributed.

That per cent. is in addition to what he would have received previously. It seems strange, notwithstanding these increased contributions, that these increased benefits are to be given from a fund which is insolvent, I suppose my hon. friend is satisfied that the increased benefits are covered by the increased contributions.

That is so.

As he points out, this new fund shows two material changes. First and foremost, and I think it is a step in the right direction, he brings the whole of the staff into the fund from the time they come into the service instead of, as in the past, only taking those in the permanent service, whilst those on temporary service had no right to come in. Now the moment a man comes into the service of the railways he comes on to the fund. That is a step in the right direction. It is beneficial from many points of view. It is beneficial in the first place, to the fund, because more contributors are likely to drop out in the earlier stages of their work than later on. Then, it was a great hardship to the men in this way, that a man would come into the service of the railway, be employed there as a temporary servant, perhaps, for four or five years, aye, even up to ten years, and when he came into the permanent service and became a contributor he had lost those years. I say this is entirely a step in the right direction. The next step, and it is a very great change from what we have been accustomed to in pension funds of this kind, is the contribution on varying scales. The past contribution basis has been 3 per cent. whatever the age of the man may be, but, of course, the pensions these men received were varied when they came to draw them. For instance, suppose a man joined at 24, or under, he drew 2 per cent. of his average pensionable emoluments, reckoned from the time he entered the service. If he joined at 30, he drew 1.62 of his average emoluments, and, if at 40, he drew 1.21. Now of course, under this scheme, the contribution varies according to the age at which he joins—at 24 per cent., at 34½, and so forth. Actuarially, that, in my opinion, is a much sounder basis. If I might venture to say so, I think the benefits that are drawn under the Bill are on a generous scale.

Take the mechanic at 36.

He has the option of taking seven years which, in my opinion, is a very great concession indeed.

Is it generous?

Certainly, it is very generous. The first thing you have to consider in connection with a matter of this kind is to keep the fund solvent. I think the Minister has been very generous over this. Instead of taking the average earnings for the whole period of a man’s service, his pension is to be based on the last seven years of his service, when, as a rule, with the ordinary staff, the highest salaries are drawn. There are two points where he favours the daily-paid staff. Instead of, as in the last Act of 1912, taking 26 days as a man’s average working days in a month, and allowing him to contribute on his salary or wages earned in those 26 days, what he has done is to take a period of 29 days and allow him to contribute on the wages he would have earned had he worked 29 days. That means paying an extra 12 per cent. in pension at pension age. I think, as the Minister points out, that is more by way of compromise, and here is a good bit to be said for it from that point of view, that is to say he is not going to pay on overtime. I think he is quite right in not paying on overtime. As he points out, it is only a certain section of the staff who have an opportunity of working overtime or who get bonuses. He has made a fair compromise by giving three days per month extra to every man in the service, either daily-paid or hourly-paid, and by taking 232 hours per month as a basis instead of 208. That, to my mind, is going to make a very considerable difference in the pensions these men receive. Then also the Bill is very generous in allowing them to pay arrear contributions. Suppose a man, when this Bill comes into operation, has been a temporary man for the last 10 years, and then automatically, subject to medical examination, comes on the staff, he is then allowed to pay arrear contributions for the previous 10 years or for his previous continuous service, and the liberality of this provision is shown by the fact that he can reckon back even to the days of the C.S.A.R. or the old republican days. That can be brought in as continuous service, and he can, if he likes, contribute arrears to get a pension for that period. Then the Minister has gone much further than the Act of 1912 in the way of refunding contributions made by men who leave the service before they reach pension age. If a man who has been a temporary servant has his service terminated for other than misconduct he gets back his contributions, plus four per cent. A man who leaves for voluntary reasons gets back his con-contributions, plus 10 per cent. for each year over 13 years. In case of death by accident his contributions, plus two-and-a-half per cent. for each year he has been in the service, are refunded and also the workman’s compensation which is paid in cases of that kind. In the case of a natural death of a servant before superannuation both the contributions of the department and of the servant are refunded. Hon. members, I am sure, will arrive at one conclusion, and that is that the benefits given under this Bill to the railway servants are on a generous scale, and I would say to my hon. friend that I think it is only due to this House, in view of the liability that is being undertaken, that he should lay on the Table the actuary’s report. The taxpayers as well as the Railway Department guarantee this fund. That is a very big liability, and I doubt myself whether it is quite wise to take such a responsibility. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof! Please understand I support the action of the Minister in making good the past deficits, but I certainly would not have taken the responsibility of guaranteeing the existing fund; I think that goes a little too far, because if we have to make goo I any further deficits on this scheme all I can say is it is going to be very rough on the Railway Department and on the users of the railway, who, of course, have to make up these deficiencies out of higher rates. Here the administration is paying £ for £ for every contribution; it is also paying for the management of the fund, and there is not a single sixpence to be paid by the servants. It is entirely paid by the department itself. That is an important consideration; I do not suppose any mutual insurance company could be run even at 10 percent. on their receipts. In this fund everything contributed goes entirely to the benefit of the men. We have got to pay very large sums, as the Minister has pointed out, to the two previous funds to make up deficits. On the one of 1912 we are now paying £1,944.000, and we also have to pay for the old railways and harbours pension fund £1.962,000, which makes close on £4,000.000 which this country has to pay, or the railway department has to pay, to make up the solvency of two previous funds. It should be known that that has to come out of the users of the railway. This is going to be a very much bigger fund, because, as my hon. friend has pointed out, to the fund of 1912 there are some 23,000 contributors, and these simply included the permanent staff men. Now we are going to bring in not only the permanent men, but also the temporary men, and I should not be surprised if this fund grew to a membership of over 40,000; indeed, I think that is a very moderate estimate. The fund will run into millions of money. Hon. members must see that any mistake made by the actuary, or any concession or benefit given which the fund cannot afford, is going to cost not merely thousands but millions; so I do say to the Minister that in justice to the House and to the people of this country, he ought to lay on the table for the information of members and the country the actuarial report on this scheme. I am not doubting it, but I think to protect himself and the Government, he should show exactly what the basis is for what has been done. I understand this Bill is going to a Select Committee. I am not against that myself, but I do say that a very grave responsibility is going to rest on that committee. I presume you will have the actuary there; the committee must satisfy themselves that this scheme is on a sound basis. This country cannot afford to have another scheme as unsound as the last two, for which we are having to pay four millions of money. I am not objecting to the scheme, but I do want, above all, to be satisfied, and the country should insist, that this scheme and the generous benefits given should, at any rate, be on sound lines. We do not want to have to make up any more deficits in superannuation funds.

I am very glad that the ex-Minister of Railways has not objected to this Bill going to a Select Committee, because it is most important in a Bill of this kind that we should, as far as possible, see that it is going to give satisfaction to the railway servants. I think the Minister stated the case for the Bill very fairly and clearly, and I must say he seems to have a thorough grasp of the Bill and he presented it in a very clear light. I am in a rather fortunate position, because I gave evidence in respect of the 1912 Bill, and I became a member of the fund; and served on the first Superannuation Committee. It was stated then that here was a superannuation fund that was absolutely sound actuarially. It is now known that the fund was not a solvent or a sound proposition. I cannot say that I agree with the Minister that there was a joint responsibility. The members who joined the fund had no say in its constitution at all. We understood at the time that it was a solvent proposition, but that has turned out to be absolutely incorrect. I am glad the Minister has taken the first serious step to tackle this problem, and place the superannuation fund on a sounder footing. When we remember the many cases of old retired servants who had to go on relief works and who have had to ask Parliament for an increase of pension, we can realize how necessary it is that it should be placed on a better footing. I know it is very difficult for the Minister to provide, under this Bill, for the old railway servants who are now on pension, and certainly he could not do it from the superannuation fund; but I hope he will make a statement as to what he proposes to do for those old railway servants who are the victims of a bad scheme. There is no joint responsibility there. These men, who were retired, some of them on pensions of £2 to £3 a month, are not to blame for the unsound scheme, and in justice to them we should take some steps to remedy this state of affairs, and thus obviate this spectacle of men on pension having to go to relief works in order to eke out an existence. Of course I do not propose that this relief should be given only to railway pensioners, but all Government pensioners should be considered. I want also to put in a word for those men who will be retired before this Bill becomes law, on inadequate pensions owing to the bad scheme. Could the Minister not include them in some scheme which would ameliorate their position? It does not seem fair to make better provision for future entrants without providing for these men who will retire before the Bill becomes law. Would it not be possible to have a general postponement of retirements; so that these servants might have the option of coming under this Bill. The Minister stated, in regard to this Bill, that the Superannuation Committee, as a committee, had agreed to it. That may be so, but the Minister also went on to say that other sections of the staff were not quite satisfied, and I think the Minister is wise therefore in agreeing that the Bill should go to a Select Committee. One of the reasons given for the bad state of the fund has been that the mortality experience of other countries was applied to this country where the conditions are entirely different. I am given to understand that, so far as the South African Railways are concerned, the number of men who reach the retiring age of 60, is about 16 or 17 per cent. I do not know whether that compares favourably with other countries, but probably it comes as a surprise to hon. members to know that so few railway servants reach retiring age. Another reason given for the huge deficiency is that I understand the question of wastage was not taken into consideration. We are of course in the hands of the actuaries and it is their special business to draw up these figures, but from a common sense point of view it does seem difficult to understand why there should be such a large deficiency. The basis of valuation of the superannuation fund in the past has not proved entirely reliable, and this may be so in the future. The Minister, in the Bill, is making provision for the retention of the old fund and for the creation of a new one. But if he will give some sort of guarantee to the members of the old fund, that, if they join the new one, their position will not be altered for the worse, then there should be no necessity for retaining the old fund. It is, indeed, an anomaly that there should be more than one superannuation fund. We shall want some more information as to what is precisely meant by casual labourers. If all the temporary railway and harbour servants join the superannuation fund it will have a beneficial effect on the fund. As to the guaranteeing of the future of the fund, the best guarantee is the re-modelling of the scale of contributions, and the fund should be self-supporting. As a result of this Bill, I hope that in five or ten years’ time the fund will be in such a strong financial position that it may be possible to reduce the contributions. As to the basis of contributions, in 1911-12 we urged very strongly that contributions should be paid on all the money the men earned, whether on their ordinary pay, or piece work, or overtime, because we maintained that the men, by working long hours or at an abnormal pace were shortening their working lives. No members on these benches wish to do anything which will place a premium on piece work or overtime, and we would prefer that the Administration should engage extra men rather than resort to piece work or overtime. The Bill provides that ordinary servants shall retire at age 60, but that telegraphists, engine-drivers and firemen and divers shall have the right to retire on pension after attaining the age of 55, or may be required to retire. There are certain other sections of the workers, certainly among the artizans, who would like to enjoy the same privilege. There are certain classes of work which are subject to occupational diseases, and if a preference is given to engine-drivers and firemen and others who have the advantage of working in the open air, a similar preference should be extended to men, who work under arduous and unhealthy conditions, for instance, men working automatic rivetting machines, and in lacquering shops and also in working paint spraying machines and such like. I want the Minister to extend consideration to any other grades that might be entitled to these benefits, subject, of course, to proper supporting medical testimony. That brings me to the point of those servants who have the right to retire at age 55, or who may be retired at that age. I think the Minister should give them the right to contribute additional contributions so as to qualify for a pension similar to the one they would have qualified for at age 60. Otherwise you will have two sets of men, say, one a driver and one a fitter, one going on pension at 55, and the other at 60, and one receiving five years’ lower pension than the man retiring at 60, owing to the more arduous duties connected with his grade. That is rather important from the point of view of these men. With regard to the artizan class, I had hoped the Minister would have been able to go a little beyond the twenty-nine days basis of contributions, and I hope the Minister will more favourably consider their position when the Bill comes before the Select Committee. With regard to the strike clause, I do not want to say much about that. I have expressed my opinion to the Minister privately, but I would like to point out that Clause 28 provides for the dismissal of a servant from the fund through fraud or misconduct, and deals also with the man who retires to avoid dismissal, and provides that in these cases the men shall be entitled to a refund of the contributions. If the dismissal is for a case of fraud, he will be liable to have deducted from his contributions the amount of any defalcations. The Minister has amplified the gospel of consultation between the Administration and the staff, and as a result of the improved machinery for settling disputes, it is highly improbable we shall have any strikes, but there may come a time when, through an incompetent manager, or an unsympathetic Minister, a strike may occur. This strike clause in the Bill does not prevent strikes, and I don’t see why you should come along and say, under these circumstances, to a man that you are going to hold up his pension contribution, money that belongs to the man as well as to his wife and family. We recognize (hat dependants of a man come first in the event, of a member becoming insolvent, we admit that the dependant shall receive special consideration. Why then, in this clause, hold out this threat to a man who may go on strike? We consider Clause 30, the strike clause, as unnecessary, because Clause 28 covers every possible kind of misconduct for which you have the power to dismiss the man. I want hon. members to be fair. Is a man, who is dismissed from the service for fraud or some serious offence, entitled to be treated more sympathetically than a man who feels that he has a grievance and refuses to work until his grievance is rectified? You say to the man who is guilty of fraud, dishonesty or misconduct, or who steals or commits a crime, that he can get a refund of his contributions, but if an honest man goes on strike then you say that we may take away his contributions. I submit that it is not necessary to have this strike clause. I maintain that Clause 28 could be so amended as to cover every possible thing that may occur on the railways, including a strike, if you like. This is not the view of the Labour party merely. There was a comprehensive report brought in by a committee of enquiry into the railways and harbours superannuation fund in 1922, which went into this question very fully, and that committee unanimously recommended that the strike clause should be deleted from the Bill. Whatever hon. members may think, no railwayman wants to go on strike, but a combination of circumstances may arise whereby the only possible means of protest is by a strike. Again, I express the opinion that, under Clause 28, you can cover every kind of offence that any railwayman or body of railwaymen may commit, and you can amend that clause to cover any industrial disputes, and there is no justification for retaining Clause 30 in the Bill. I want to deal briefly with the question of the rate of interest payable by the Administration in respect of the credit balance of the fund. One of the reasons why the fund was found in such a bad condition was the fact that under the Act of 1912 you only credited it with interest at the rate of 4 per cent. Now it is to be increased to 4½ per cent., but I would remind hon. members that during the war the rate of interest went up enormously, and 5 per cent. is generally accepted now as the rate of interest for even gilt-edged securities. Even if you guarantee the fund, I would like to see the Minister increase the rate of interest to 5 per cent. I would like, in conclusion, to draw the attention of those hon. members who think that this fund is the last word in generosity to the fact that the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia passed an Act in 1922, providing superannuation benefits for all public servants on a very liberal scale, and in the event of the pensioner pre-deceasing his wife, half of the pension automatically reverted to her. (Time limit.)

I think that all members will agree with me that the Minister has very clearly put the position of this new Bill before us, and I trust that he will not object to my going into somewhat greater detail into the matter of the old fund than he has done. I am not doing this in any spirit which may be considered corrective, but I wish to amplify what he has said and thus perhaps makes a difficult position more clearly understood and particularly to lead up to a suggestion which to some members may appear startling, but which appears to me a better way of getting out of a difficulty than by any system of giving annually large grants. The position is that the railway servants enjoy the benefits of two different funds. There was the old pension fund of the railway and harbour service, which consisted of contributors to the pre-Union Cape and Natal pension fund. This fund was in every way guaranteed by the Administration. Then there was another fund the Superannuation Fund under the Act of 1912, the Railways and Harbours Service Act. The actuarial valuation of the first fund showed at the 31st March, 1919, a very large deficiency, £1,409,843, and in the 5 years since then that deficiency has increased to £1,962,399. To cope with this, increased contributions have been given, and whereas last year the contribution was £83,700. This year the increases is £78,300, making the contributions £162,000 as the Minister stated. At this rate, also as the Minister stated, the deficiency can only be liquidated in 1942. The Government’s position in this superannuation fund is that they accept no liability, except perhaps a moral liability, and this is accepted as in the past by Government after Government. The present Bill in no way remedies the past though it now fixes the liability for the future. The actuarial valuation of the fund at the 31st March, 1919, disclosed a deficit of £1,854,160, and that deficiency has increased to £1,944,000 as at the end of March, 1924. Provision is made on the Estimates for a first contribution towards this deficiency of £100,000, but even at that rate it is going to take 20 years to wipe off this deficiency. Annually also the average loss is £14,088 which means that in 20 years time the actual loss on this basis would be £281,760, that is if losses do not increase and it is by no means certain that they will not. The actuaries again hope that the provision now made will give a final settlement, but are they not as likely to have failed in this valuation as in the previous one? The deficiencies on the two funds amount together to £4,000,000 in round figures, and the total contribution this year towards the two funds is £262,000. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) seems to think the reason for the failure of the position is that four per cent. was paid as interest instead of 4½ per cent., but I wish to show him that even with interest at 4½ per cent. the fund would still be insolvent. The whole money is on deposit with the Administration and in 1922 the interest was increased by ½ per cent. The membership of the fund has risen from 15,394 in 1919 to 21,686 in 1924, and members paying additional contributions have increased from 1,421 to 1,753 during the same period while member annuitants increased from 231 to 876. Of these 876 in force in 1924, 686 were granted on superannuation and 190 owing to ill-health or accident. The balance at the credit of the fund on deposit with the Administration has increased from £2,491,500 in 1919 to £4,687,991 in 1924; in other words the total assets of the fund amount to £4,745,067. This fund is going to continue annually to increase and will do so for many years, but while the fund is increasing the increasing number of annuities will add largely to the liability of the fund balance. In 1919 there was a large deficiency which in 1924 was very greatly increased. Let us consider the officers’ section. At March, 1919, the fund, even with interest calculated at per cent showed a deficiency of £424,000 odd. The valuation assumes that interest will be payable on the whole amount of the liability while interest is actually payable on the amount of the fund balance. The deficiency would have increased owing to such loss of interest to £528,559 on the 31st March, 1924. But interest on the fund balance was payable only at 4 per cent. up to 31st March, 1922, and the difference between the interest actually credited to the fund during the quinquennium and the amount of interest that would have been credited at the rate of 4½ per cent throughout is £14,701 which increases the deficiency by £543,260. An approximate valuation on the 1919 basis with interest at 4½ per cent. gives a deficiency of £570,671 in 1924. It is perfectly evident, therefore, that apart from the interest mentioned the officers’ section alone has sustained a loss of £27,000 during the quinquennium on the 1919 basis. The actual deficiency in the officers’ section alone now stands at £716,482. There were a large number of retrenchments and these greatly reduced the tremendous strain on the fund. If we take the employees’ section on the same basis, we find a total deficiency of £1,944,600 as at 31st March, 1924, and this would increase very much at compound interest at fully 4½ per cent. per annum. Coming to the present Bill, is it the intention of the Minister to ask us to make an annual vote or does he want us to make some provision once and for all to put the fund on a sound basis. Several methods were suggested in the actuarial report. One was that the pension scale could be reduced by increasing the entry age but that obviously was impracticable. In this respect the terms of the Bill are preferable. Another method suggested was to make members entitled to retire at 55 pay a higher contribution. Unfortunately it is not known, when an employee joins, whether he will be entitled to retire at 55, also some are transferred to other occupations where they are not entitled to retire before 60. A man, when he joins, might intend to retire at 55 but might be transferred to other occupations in which he would not be entitled to retire until the age of 60. Then again additional contributions may be claimed from members of the fund. Here again the actuaries claim that the suggestion is bad in practice; but I find that the Minister has embodied the suggestion in the Bill by getting the men to pay a higher contribution. That I will deal with later on, when I get to the relative clause. There in no question that the present position of the old fund is very serious and I feel that the position will grow worse unless we tackle it now. To my mind, the only method by which we can meet the difficulty is now to take a bold step and decide to capitalize the whole of this old deficit. And I am going to suggest also that the railway administration should not bear the cost of this. We know that, during the three years after Union, very large sums were paid into the central Government by the railways. In 1910-11 they paid £1,520,000. In 1911-’12 £1,159,000 in 1912-13 £500,000; so that during these three years, the railway administration paid to the central Government consolidated revenue fund a sum of £3,179,000. The deficiency on this fund is just on £4,000,000 and my suggestion is that this should be capitalized. The money should be borrowed, and the central Government should take the responsibility of this. I think that is quite right; for originally the responsibility of this fund rested on the central Government. I think the claim I am making is not an extraordinary one and that the central Government should take over the burden of this deficiency and that the railway administration should be in a position to say that none of their funds are insolvent. I think it will pay us to do this; because if we, annually, have to make a large grant out of revenue for which we are getting no benefit, and I do not see how it will help us in any way except maintain railway rates at a high level. I wish to touch on a few clauses of the Bill itself. I suggest to the Minister that, in his committee of management, he should give special consideration to the question of allowing harbour employees representation on that committee. The ordinary employees of the railway, outside the harbour, far outnumber the harbour employees, and if they have this committee appointed by the vote of the railway employees throughout the country the harbour employees will never have an opportunity to have one of their men on the committee. In their case there are certain considerations which may not be understood by the ordinary railway employee. Their conditions of service are quite different, and. I think it is advisable that this important branch should be considered, even if they only have one member on this committee of management. Then contract men are not allowed to contribute during their contract period, and yet they may, by the Bill, be retained in the service after their contract has expired. I find no provision in the Bill by which the contract time can be taken as part of the time of full service in regard to superannuation. I do not know what the Minister’s views are, but if contract men are taken on after their contract expires, service under the contract should count as pensionable service. The hon. member for Salt River has touched on the question of temporary employees, and I feel that the position of a great many employees is rather serious. If we consider the harbour, we know of men who have been serving there for 20 or 30 years and to-day they are still employed as temporary men. Surely these men should have some consideration. They can have no part in this new fund, a fund arranged, I take it, for the benefit of the whole of the employees. Why cannot they come in and share in this fund also? I could never appreciate why these men are always classed as temporary men. It seems to me that the word “temporary” is unduly widened in its meaning when you say that a man, after 20 years’ service, is a temporary man, although he may be working every day on the railway. The Minister has made provision to allow female employees to benefit under this fund. I cannot appreciate, however, why there is a distinct difference between the benefits to be received by women and those given to men. The difference is that the Minister leaves to the administration the power to make certain changes—

Why is this difference made? Surely they are all servants of the administration and ought all to be treated alike. I can see no reason, also, why persons employed by the fund should not be members of this fund. Sub-section (11) of section 5, if read in conjunction with section 39—where we find that these men employed on the fund must be servants of the administration—makes it difficult to understand the reason for the terms of section 5 (11). Clause 39 lays down that the business of the fund shall be conducted by means of the staff of the administration, and yet in clause 5, sub-section (11), the administration may, in its discretion, admit persons exclusively employed in the conduct of any fund. These men must be employees of the administration and there should, therefore, be no distinction. Under Clause 6, the Minister has the right to condone a break in service. I wish the Minister to consider this point of view. At present when there is a break of service, an employee can come to Parliament; but, in future, it will he possible for the Select Committee on Pensions to say to a man who feels that he has not been well treated by the Administration that he is debarred from coming to the House. They may say this is a case where the Administration must decide. No man should be deprived of the right he has to come to the highest authority in the land. Then contributions by members are very substantially increased. Although the actuaries have advised that it is bad in practice to ask increased contributions, the Minister requires members of the old fund to pay ¾ per cent. more than at present. If the actuaries in their report consider this a bad principle, it seems to me it is bad to ask for increased contributions in a Bill such as this is claimed to be. The increased contribution becomes compulsory on every member of the old fund. I strongly support the Minister in his contention as to the daily paid men, and I cannot understand what the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) wishes to give them. I am not opposing this because I feel they are entitled to increased benefits, but I think the Minister has gone far enough, and if he goes any further the other members of the fund will suffer. It is sound, and one entirely agrees that commutation of pensions should be restricted, so that we can secure to the men pensions even in spite of their own wrong-doing. Several clauses in the Bill are merely repetition, for example, the clause which refers to retiring age is the same as the clause dealing with this subject in the Railway Service Bill which passed its second reading here a little while ago. Suppose the Service Bill is passed with these clauses in it, but some amendment is made to the clauses in this Bill, what will be the position then? I refer particularly to Clause 14, which is the same as Clause 16 of the other Bill. This duplication is very dangerous. As to the age of retirement, the engine-drivers say that, although a driver may appear physically fit, he himself may feel unfitted to carry on—for one reason, he may have lost confidence. They, therefore, ask that retirement be compulsory at 55 and permissive at 50. An engine-driver holds a very responsible position, and if he feels he has lost confidence in himself he may be a source of serious danger to the public. Paragraph 3 of Clause 16, and paragraph 1 of Clause 24 open up rather a serious position. If, through no fault of his own, a man has to retire, I cannot see any reason why he should be treated differently because he has to do so by reason of severe bodily injury, than if he had to retire for some other reason due to his service, but here the two cases are to be treated in a different way. The same remark applies in the case of death through injuries. Under Clause 31 it is stated that if a member of the new fund dies from the effects of severe bodily injury occasioned without his own default whilst in the discharge of his duties, his executors will receive twice the amount of his contributions, plus 2½ per cent. of such sum for each complete year for which he has contributed, but if a member dies from any other cause—anything but bodily injury—his heirs will receive twice the amount of his contribution to the fund, but without interest. The position in regard to a member’s insolvency requires very careful consideration. Why should his wife and children have to prove that they are dependent on him before receiving any benefits? They should not be required to advance proofs, but proofs—if proofs are necessary—should be limited to the case of illegitimate children. Again, a man cannot receive any payments from the fund during the period of his insolvency, but should he be rehabilitated he is reinstated in the fund, and also gets all amounts due, but withheld during his insolvency. As to the strike clause, I feel that the employees, as a whole, are very strongly opposed to the risk of being called out in the event of a sympathetic strike. They do not wish to he involved in this way, for they feel that the public and Parliament have always treated them sympathetically, and are prepared to consider all their grievances and to meet them in every possible way. The large majority of the railwaymen are quite satisfied with that position, but if we leave the door open to them to be “pulled out” in the case of a sympathetic strike, we shall encourage, instead of discouraging, agitators. When they have a real grievance Parliament has never refused them their rights. No one can complain that Parliament has been anything but generous, and I trust that with the goodwill of the public and of Parliament now disclosed, we shall have a contented service.

I want to refer to the question of the casual labourer. I have had brought to my notice that there are many men employed as casual labourers, who have been in the service of the administration for many years. The Bill does not make it clear what is meant by “casual,” but “temporary” and “permanent” are defined in the Bill. Under section 5 there is the question of contract. In the Service Bill provision is made that certain men can be brought to the country on a contract for a period of say five years, but when the time expires, if they are suitable men, and they are retained in the service, there is no provision that those five years shall count for pension purposes. There is no reference, either, to the men on the steamships belonging to the administration. There is no provision in the contract where these men can come on the pension fund. Take a case in point. A carpenter was transferred from the administration workshop on to a steamship, and he was retained on the ship for three years or more, when owing to his wife’s health he asked to be transferred back to the workshop, where he had to sign on as a new entrant at the wages of a new entrant. That period at sea indicated a break in his service. There are many young engineers who have served their apprenticeship on the railways, and they are frequently transferred to the steamships, and remain long enough to qualify for the Board of Trade seagoing engineer’s certificate. When they get the certificate and come back into the workshops of the administration the service they had on board the ship is lost. Although this Bill has gone a long way further than anything we have had before, and the Minister has taken a courageous course, the Act yet fails in providing adequate pensions for the men on the lowest scale of wages, that is the man who can least afford to be laid up at 60. Some of the higher paid officials retire on big pensions, but the lower paid men are not getting adequate treatment, and you are going to have a large number of men on low wages who will retire without an adequate pension. With regard to the strike clause, I agree that everything should be done to prevent strikes, not only on the railways, hut in every industry in the country. What has a strike clause got to do with a pension scheme? It is a scheme to which the men and the administration are contributing. You might have the biggest scamp under the sun employed on the railways, yet if he gets fired from the railways, for any misconduct, he gets his contributions paid back. Yet a man who makes the first slip of his life, and goes on strike, his contributions are withheld. The best thing that can happen is for the strike clause to be deleted from this otherwise excellent Bill. The departmental report referred to by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) dealing with the strike clause, states—

I am going to ask the Minister to agree to delete from this otherwise excellent Act that obnoxious strike paragraph. I don’t think we shall ever have strikes on the railways, in fact I don’t think that we are going to have any strikes in the country. I speak as a responsible trade union official. The men are becoming well organized, and the employers are responding and are more reasonable to-day than ever before. The conditions now prevailing on the railway, and the conditions that are contemplated are going to make if unlikely that for the next half century, at any rate, there is not going to be a strike on our railways. This clause causes intense feelings amongst the men, and I ask the Minister to delete it.

I desire, first of all, to tender my grateful acknowledgments to the Minister for the generosity, coupled with justice, of the revised pension scheme which takes into its purview the seven last years of a man’s service on which to calculate his pension. I remember, when I had an interview with him last year about that, putting before him the case of certain railwaymen, whose well-founded complaint was that, under the existing regulations, their pension was calculable on the entire length of their service. That was detrimental to the man who had forced his way to the front by sheer merit and hard work. I am very grateful to the Minister for this improved regulation, and hope that the House will accept it without demur or cavil. I desire to say something about this much-talked-of strike clause. May I point out—and I do this with the utmost regard for the interests of the working classes—that when men enter the service of the State their pay is guaranteed for their effective years and a pension is guaranteed for the years that are not effective, in other words, they are provided for the whole term of their natural life. I accept with some reservation the assurance given by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) that, in his judgment, strikes are altogether unlikely for 50 years to come. I wish I had that prophetic gift to make me speak so boldly as that, but I have not that prophetic gift. I do not anticipate 50 years of industrial peace and with a reconstructed railway and harbour service, where more is promised to be done than ever before for railway servants, is it right that that service, so vital to the State, should be interfered with in case of a strike elsewhere, by a sympathetic strike which would involve men who are in the public service? I believe in the possibility of the life of the State being threatened by a sympathetic strike of railwaymen, and for that reason I hope this clause is going to be retained and that men who absent themselves for strike purposes will pay the price of their own conscious fault in rebelling against the authority of the State whose servants they are.

I think the Minister of Railways and Harbours must have been born under a lucky star, because in this session, which has lasted so long, and in which not much solid work has been done so far, he seems to be the only one that is able to introduce measures that appeal, not to one, but to all sections of the House, and to get them through easily. The Bill that he has introduced to-day is a fair and just one, and has, therefore, met with general acceptance all round. Really, it is only twin brother to the Bill that he introduced the other day, and in future years I have no doubt that these Bills will be looked upon as the charter of the railwaymen in South Africa. I want to take up very little time, because I only wish to draw attention to a few matters which I hope will be dealt with in Select Committee. The Minister, in regard certainly to one matter, I would like to mention, has already improved the position, in comparison with the original draft of the Bill, and I can only hope that I may persuade him to do a little more than has been done. In regard to the question of the working days and the calculation of the pensions of the daily paid men, referred to in Section 11 (2) (c) as the Bill was originally drafted it gave 26 days, and the Minister has now increased it in this draft to 29 days. That, of course, is a very substantial improvement, but I am told that it is still going to be a very great hardship, particularly to the men in the transportation department, not so much to the artizans, who draw higher pay, and who do not work the same hours as these men. The hours and time worked by men in the transportation department exceed 29 days per month. If worked out, it, certainly means a loss over a period of time of a great deal in regard to their pensions. If you take 26 days, you get a loss of 48 days per annum and with 30 years’ service a loss of 1,440 days, and with 36 years’ service 1,728 days. If you take 29 days then over a period of 30 years there is a loss of about one year. That is a position that can be met if the Minister, when the Bill gies to Select Committee, would consider whether it is not possible to alter the 29 days to 30. Then he would cover the vast majority of cases in the transportation department and other departments. Thirty days is about the average time taken by the men who work in the transportation department. The other point to which I want to draw his attention has been touched upon by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow). That is in regard to doing something for the unfortunate men who come under the old scheme. You find men, after 30 or 40 years’ service, going out at 60 with a pension of from £4 to £7 a month. I can quite see that there would be great difficulty in dealing with their case under this Bill, but they certainly ought to be dealt with, and I hope the Select Committee will go into their case. It is very hard in their case if such a great difference is to be laid down between the man who leaves within the next few months before the Bill becomes operative, and the man who happens to remain a few days after the Bill becomes law. I was going to suggest that you might take the time when the Bill was first introduced into the House. It would be a fair thing, and possibly the Select Committee might be able to make some recommendation in regard to it. These are the two important points that I want the Minister to consider, deal with and, if possible, rectify. A great deal of attention has been given to this strike clause. I, myself, am against strikes, but I also know that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has told us that there are 74,500 men in the railways. You cannot possibly prevent these men from striking for their rights simply by a clause in an Act. None of the strike clauses in previous Acts have been carried out, or could be carried out, so what is the good of putting Clause 30 in? The point hon. members have missed, and which the Minister might give his attention to, is that that clause, with the provisos, is almost meaningless, and it is very difficult to ascertain its meaning. It is not necessary to have that clause: because without it men who go on strike will be deemed to have retired from the service. Under other clauses you can dismiss a man for misconduct, and it is misconduct for a man to absent himself from work.

It makes it clearer.

No; so far from doing that, Clause 30 makes confusion worse confounded; because it begins by saying that a man is taken as having retired from service and the first proviso says that he can only get a refund if there is a resolution of Parliament. That assumes that if a body of men go on strike they can only get a refund if both Houses pass a resolution; but then there is another proviso which says that if it is an industrial dispute, refund is given. Does that mean with the consent of Parliament?

No.

Very well. It comes immediately after the other proviso. The only way to make the clause consistent is to read it as meaning that if a number of people go on strike their contributions are lost, but Parliament by resolution can give them back; but if it is an industrial dispute the men are entitled to them. But every strike is an industrial dispute, whether a sympathetic strike or an ordinary one. Men do not go on strike to get a joy-ride or to have a fight with somebody. The whole of the first part of the clause is thus contradicted by the second part. Supposing a man, through spite against an engine-driver, deliberately diverts the points, to get the engine-driver into trouble and a number of deaths are caused; that would be very serious misconduct; but under this Act the guilty man would be able to get back his contributions; but the man who goes on sympathetic strike does not get back his contributions except in the circumstances already referred to. I say the clause is unnecessary and it is wrong because it indicates that people who go on strike should be treated differently from those who are guilty of other forms of misconduct. The principle is entirely wrong. We can leave Parliament to deal with the matter, should a strike occur. The Minister should include them under Section 28, and should treat their going out on strike as an act of misconduct, and also make provision for them to receive their contributions back. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) rightly said that many additional benefits are given under the Bill. But the pension provisions are by no means the most generous in the world, as the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) has pointed out. Cannot something be done where a man who serves the State for many years, dies within a week or so of going on pension, for in such a case his wife and dependents receive nothing except possibly a small amount from the widows’ pension fund? In Australia under Act 33 of 1922 when a man has been in the service for at least ten years, and dies, a portion of the pension is paid to his widow and children. Something of this nature should be done in South Africa, and the Select Committee might very well go into the matter. I would also like the Minister to consider how to encourage the men to leave the old pension fund and join the new one. Some of the men are under the impression that they will be worse off by joining the new fund, but if it can be shown to them that they will not suffer by transferring to the new fund, the old fund will gradually cease to exist. The member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) dealt with the point in regard to the question of insolvency. In this connection I would like the Minister to bear in mind that we dealt with this matter in Section 72 of the Public Service and Pensions Act of 1923. Section 71 of the Act might also be usefully consulted in this connection. The intention was the same and I take it the Minister’s desire is to protect the pensioner against himself. Under Section 71 of the Public Service Act no right in the pension can be ceded and if an assignment is attempted payment may be withheld if the Governor-General so determines and the latter may direct the payment of the pension to one or more dependents or a trustee for them. It is desirable to get uniformity between the public service and the railway service, and Sections 71 and 72 are useful guides for protecting the pensioner’s wife and family under circumstances which might lead to the whole pension being taken away. Parliament has set its face against creditors attaching pensions. This measure is a useful piece of work and the Minister is to be congratulated upon it. I am glad he is going to give an instruction to the Select Committee to report the Bill as soon as possible, and I think this measure is going to be known as the South African railway servants charter and that the railwaymen’s position is going to be much better in the future than it has been in the past.

I would like to refer to the position of the members of the funds created under the Natal Acts of 1907 and 1910. I do so because I would like the Minister, in replying, to state definitely what his intentions are in regard to those pensioners who retired under those Acts. The Minister knows the position because I handed to him for perusal the documents sent to me from the Pensions’ Association of Natal in order that he might be prepared. The contributions under those two Acts were very small, with the result that the pensions enjoyed are correspondingly small. There are many pensioners in Natal belonging to the funds in question who are living on a beggarly pittance. The pensions were originally calculated on the average emoluments of the whole period of service, and it was subsequently recognized that it was impossible for these men to live on the pensions received.

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

I feel that it is not necessary for me to deal at length with this matter, because the whole of the case has been submitted to the Minister. The documents were put before him by me and there is not much that I can add. I stated when the House adjourned that the position of these pensioners was originally that the pension was calculated on the average emolument during the whole period of service. That continued until after the Anglo-Boer war, when it was found that it was quite impossible for these pensioners to subsist on what they were then receiving. The position was then revised and the conditions improved to this extent that the pensions were then calculated on the average emoluments for the last five years of service. This was a concession which at that time seemed to meet the situation, but the cost of living then was not what it is to-day. Subsequently, as the result of the great war the cost of living increased by something like 100 per cent. At present the sovereign of pre-war days is assumed to be value for 10s., and these men find that If is impossible for them to subsist on the pensions they are now receiving. What they desire is the stepping up of their pensions by their being allowed to pay in certain arrears. What they say is—

That is the proposal which they make. Of course, I do not know that it is a feasible one, and perhaps the Minister will state his views in regard to it in the course of his reply. I would like to give a few examples which have been sent to me of the pensions these men are receiving under the two Acts which I referred to. I do not think it is necessary to give the names. The first is the case of an engine driver, who served from 1st January, 1889, till 30th April, 1914, a period of 25 years, whose commencing pay was 6s. 7d. per day and whose closing pay was 15s. per day. He is a married man with a family, and is to-day receiving a pension of £6 3s. 5d. a month. Then there is the case of another driver, who was pensioned off on 28th February, 1914, after contributing to the fund for 19½ years, his commencing wage being £18 per month and his closing wage 16s. 3d. per day. His pension is £4 14s. 4d. per month, after 19½ years’ service. He is a married man with a family.

It was your own Government.

The next case is that of a coal inspector, who contributed from 1892 to 1910 (18 years) and has a pension of £7 0s. 3d. There is a blacksmith, who contributed from 1887 to 1912 (32 years) and has a pension of £8 19s. 2d. per month. A first-grade clerk contributed from 1st August, 1896, to 31st December, 1920, (24 years), his commencing salary being £8 per month and his closing salary £464 per annum. He is receiving a pension of £12 19s. 1d. per month. An electrician contributed from 1st March, 1910, till 13th June, 1912, his commencing pay being 10s. per day and his closing salary £20 per month. He was retired owing to abolition of office and, therefore, had five years added. His pension is £5 14s. 11d. per month. He never received the war allowance. During the great war these pensioners were allowed a war allowance of 5 per cent. which enabled them to manage during that time. That 5 per cent. is no longer received and the plight of these men is a sorry one indeed, and I would urge upon the Minister that men who have done good work for the State, who have rendered loyal service to the State, should not be thrown on the scrap heap to-day and receive a pittance on which it is impossible for them to keep body and soul together. The Minister his introduced a measure to-day which, I think, he deserves every credit for, a measure which is absolutely essential in the interests of the service, and it would be a pity to disregard the claims of these old servants, who are to-day feeling that they have been left out in the cold when they don’t deserve it. The Bill, I understand, is to go to a Select Committee, and I do urge upon the Minister to insist on dealing with this phase of the question when the matter comes before the Select Committee. I would ask him to allow the pensioners concerned to be represented before that Select Committee and to give them a just and square deal. They are entitled to it as old servants of the State. When introducing his Bill to-day, the Minister laid stress on the fact that as servants of the State the men should receive every consideration and, while he is giving every consideration to those who are still in the service and who will receive the benefits of this Bill, I hope he will give every consideration to those men, who, as I said, have rendered good service to the State in the past.

As a member of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, to which it is intended to refer this Bill, I have paid close attention to the discussion on the measure and have made a mental note of the various suggestions put forward for its improvement. I am inclined to the belief, however, that very little alteration is necessary in this measure at all, and throughout the whole of the discussion it has constantly occurred to me that it would be a very fine thing indeed if the Government would take into consideration the establishing of a similar scheme to this for those workmen who are unfortunate enough not to be in the railway service to-day. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) has drawn attention to the position of the railwaymen who have retired and are about to retire on pension, and has suggested that, in order to bring them within the scope of this Bill, the Minister should agree to the Act coming into operation on the day it was introduced into the House. I cannot subscribe to that. It would then be just as hard upon the men who have gone on pension just immediately before. There should be no mention of strikes in a superannuation Bill. I agree with the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) that there is not likely to be any trouble on the railways for a considerable time; at any rate, while the present Government hold office. The position of the average railwayman is very similar to that of the manservant whose employer wanted to get rid of him. “Well,” replied the manservant, “I don’t intend to go, because if you don’t know when you have a good servant, I know when I have a good master.” What with the Service Bill, which went through the House recently, considerably improving the working conditions on the railway; what with the Superannuation Bill, which is going to ensure in most cases a reasonable pension for the servants and what with getting rid of a Government that conducted the railways on so-called business lines for those who used them, and very hard lines for those who worked them, and who were always considering the reduction of railway rates at the expense of the workers, the railwaymen to-day are in a very fortunate position indeed. I do not intend to go into details of the Bill now; I will give it full consideration in Select Committee. The railwaymen, with the privileges they now have, may be depended upon to push on with the industrial and agricultural development of South Africa, so that we can, like the chief characters in the popular novel, “live happy ever after.”

I, for one, join in the chorus of blessing on this Bill. But, in regard to what the last speaker has said, why a measure which is intended to be of benefit to the men should be made the subject of a party attack, I cannot understand. Many are only beginning to realize that the human machine is the greatest machine in the industrial world, and it is only as we realize that and do our duty by our servants that we are able to progress. Every man who sits on the Pensions Committee knows the amount of suffering that is brought before that committee, but, while you may open your heart, you cannot open the Government’s pocket. One of the greatest hardships has been that when a husband dies the whole of the money paid into the fund is lost. This Bill contains a clause that the whole of the money goes to the widow. That is equitable and just, and I hope to see that principle extended to every other pension fund in connection with the Government. There is a matter I should like to mention and which I think is important. You have in your employment a large number of casual labourers—it is true they have coloured skins—for whom there is no provision at all, and there are 40,000 of these men on the railway. I am going to raise my voice on their behalf, because they are not in the position to-day to make their voices and their votes heard in this House. Any Bill which leaves the vast majority of employees out of consideration does an injustice. These men in a very humble way ought to receive some consideration. You would not require a large contribution from them, and very little would be required from the Government, to give them enough for their old age. I may not live to see it, but there is bound to come a time when a future Government will take up the question. Any Government that fails to meet its obligations in this way is not doing its duty. I agree with the hon. members who say that the word “strike” should not occur in a Bill of this kind. I have seen many strikes. Is it fair to penalize a man, to brand him so that he does not get employment, simply because he takes up a certain position? The rebel who wins becomes a statesman, and the one who loses becomes a martyr. I know of two men who made speeches in favour of a strike and they were discharged. Why should that be? They were only advocating what they considered should be put right. It is not doing justice to a man, because you know he cannot get any other employment. Punish a man if you will, but not to the extent that you deprive him of the means of existence for ever, that you take away the bread from his wife and children. I am pleased to see the method the Government has adopted to make the fund sulf-supporting. The raising of contributions will not be very serious to the men, and although it has some serious aspects, the benefits to be given will be very great. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has given his blessing on most of the points and, although I have disagreed with his railway policy in the past, and whatever may be said against him, there is no doubt that he is an honest and equitable man. This Bill is dealing with over 70,000 persons. I do not know of any other Bill dealing with a Government service that is so far-reaching. Everything possible, therefore, ought to be done towards the progress of the railways. In regard to a point which has been raised, why should the men who may be regularly employed at sea be considered as casual labourers? What is the difference? They are both part and parcel of the system, whether a man happens to be called a sailor or an engine-driver, they are both serving the country and to call them casual workers is not reasonable. If they continue in your service, they ought to get better consideration. I throw out that suggestion for the Select Committee. Any man who is in regular employment from year to year in the Government service should not be called a casual worker. I think, further, that to keep men for ten years and then admit them is not reasonable. You have no need to wait ten years, as was previously the case, before putting a man on the permanent staff. You are likely to get much better service out of a man who knows he is in a permanent position, and who is working for a pension. I rose principally to raise my voice on behalf of the 45,000 employees who are not referred to in the Bill, but who are just as essentially workers in the service as the others. He who serves in the humblest ranks of life tends to make the human machine go just as much as he who serves in the highest.

I think hon. members will agree with me that the discussion which has taken place on this Bill has been most helpful and I wish to express my appreciation of the tone that has animated all the speeches made in regard to this Bill. Many of the points raised can be dealt with in the Select Committee. That is the case with regard to several points raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl); for instance, the overlapping clauses. They are very important points.

Will you be there?

Yes. I now propose to deal with a few of the outstanding points which have been raised. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has raised the question as to whether the increased contribution of members in the old fund, and who will remain in the old fund, will cover the benefits received. I may say that in giving these increased benefits, we have considered what increased contributions have to be made, and the three-quarters per cent. which brings up the total contributions to seven and a half per cent., plus the £ for £ contribution of the Administration will fully cover those additional benefits.

And keep it sound?

Yes. The hon. member has also asked if the actuaries’ report will be laid upon the Table. I may say that the actuary has not actually given a report, but this scheme is largely the scheme which has been drawn up by the actuary, and I propose when the Select Committee sits to ask him to be present to give information to the committee from time to time as required. The actuary, however, has seen this Bill and approves of the terms thereof. The hon. member has also said that I have gone too far in regard to guaranteeing the solvency of the new fund and the benefits of the new fund, but surely, in any case, Parliament will foot the Bill. Does the hon. member, or any other hon. member, suggest that if this fund in future should show a deficit, that this, or any other Government, including a Government of which the hon. member may be a member, will do anything else but say that Parliament will foot the bill. That has been the experience in South Africa since Union and it seems to me it is far better for the Administration to be forewarned that they are responsible for the solvency of the fund. It will make them all the more careful to examine the condition of the fund from time to time, so that adjustments, as may be necessary, may take place from time to time. It seems to me that the object he has in mind, and I agree with him, is that this fund should be on solvent lines, and that we should not have a repetition of the unfortunate position that exists in regard to the old funds, and that can best be done by the Administration guaranteeing the solvency of the fund and securing the benefits to the staff. As long as there is this insecurity, they know that every five years there is a valuation of the fund and they do not know what the result is going to be, and it is upsetting to the staff, and instead of your superannuation fund doing the good it should do, it upsets the staff and gives them a grievance. We want to remove this unnecessary grievance from the minds of the staff, so that they can concentrate on their work. I do not think I have erred by being too generous, but have taken the sound business line, and have faced at once the responsibility of the country for any deficit that may occur, at the same time giving the House the Assurance that the position will be closely watched from time to time and the necessary steps taken as soon as it is discovered that there is a deficiency. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) has raised several points. He and others have dealt with the position of old pensioners, but I think the reply has been given by other hon. members who followed. I think it would be wrong to complicate the position of the members of the fund at present, and future members, by bringing in the old servants, that is, the present pensioners. The superannuation Bill does not deal with past benefits or responsibilities. Here we are setting up a new scheme which we want to be dealt with on sound lines. The hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. Van Zyl) will agree with me that we should not now interfere with the solvency of this fund, because in a new fund it is very important that we should have the benefits of wastage. Those who ante-date, and old members, are not profitable to a fund. As a matter of fact, they cost us a lot of money, because there is not the wastage. On the other hand, new members are more profitable, as there is a large wastage among them from time to time. So I regret, however much I sympathise with the position of the old pensioners, and however much I agree that, their position in many cases is hard. I cannot open the doors of this fund to them. They must simply appeal to Parliament and Parliament must, in its wisdom, deal with the question as it may be advised from time to time.

I asked you to make other provisions.

I think I have really enough hay on my fork with present members and those who are to come. Certainly, at this stage, and under this measure, the matter cannot be dealt with. It would be unsound both from the point of view of the fund and of the pensioners. The question has also been raised of those members who are on the point of retiring and who may be retired before the Bill becomes law. I have very much sympathy with the case of these servants. There is much to be said for these men, but it will be recognized that it would be dangerous to include those who are retired since the date this Bill was introduced into the House; because if you do that the man who retired perhaps a few days before the Bill was introduced will say I have a very good case and it will be very difficult to defend. I think the Select Committee might deal with this position after consulting the actuary. I do not want to commit the Administration and we must leave it as an open question to deal with. Hon. members also raised the question of giving a guarantee to servants who transfer to the new fund, that they will not receive lesser benefits than they were entitled to under the old fund. I do not think we can grant that, because the man who is in the old fund, if he thinks he is better off, has the option of remaining in the old fund, and if he transfers to the new fund, he does so of his own free will. It is true we want to see them transfer to the new fund, but at the same time it is a very dangerous thing to guarantee them, because it is so difficult to ascertain what your liabilities are. That is a matter which we might consult the actuary about, and which the committee might deal with, but as at present advised, I do not think it would be safe to put this additional burden on to the fund. I must say at once that in regard to the request made that the pension should be calculated on a one fiftieth basis, instead of a one sixtieth basis, as provided in the Bill, that it is quite impossible for me to accept that. The whole fund has been built up on that basis and it would be quite impossible to disturb that as it would mean recasting the whole Bill. In regard to the much discussed strike laws, this unfortunate clause seems to have a very unhappy round in this House. I was told when we dealt with the Service Bill that the strike clause should not be in that, as it was not at home there, so I thought hon. members would welcome it in the Superannuation Bill, but I find that it is not even welcome in this Bill, not even with this very valuable proviso to the men who have gone on strike. I want to be candid and say I am not prepared to remove this clause. I think it is in the interests of the service that it should stand. Hon. members say, and I am glad to say that I agree with them, that we are not going to have any more strikes. Hon. members on the cross benches might not agree with me but I think a clause of that kind is helpful to our service. There are times when the pressure becomes very great and when members of the staff are rather glad to shield themselves behind the strike clause. I am quite prepared to accept the commendation of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) when he is right, and I must say that in this case I find myself in thorough agreement with him. But, sir, may I point out that even our friends, the artizans, do not say they are very pleased with the clause, but they admitted it was a fair compromise. Under these circumstances the clause ought to stand, and let us trust to the good sense of our servants that they do not strike. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has asked me about the deficiency, but he must have overlooked the last portion of clause 55 which states that—

He has also asked me about plans for reducing the deficiency. We have adopted the third suggestion of the committee—that is to increase their contributions—and those who contributed two per cent. in addition to three per cent. had to increase their contributions, and as a result of that the deficiency will be very materially reduced. I must welcome the hon. member as an optimist, for he suggests that I should ask the Central Government for the railway surplus of £3,000,000 and thus extinguish the deficit. I would ask him to consider what the Minister of Finance would say to such a suggestion, and I am certainly not going to waste any breath on that. We shall simply have to do the best we can under the circumstances, unfortunate though the position may be. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), and other hon. members have dealt with the position of the men, who, after being under contract for a number of years are taken into permanent employment, and asked whether the years of service of these men while under contract will be counted as departmental service. Yes, they will be counted, so that case is fully met. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) made several other remarks in regard to engine drivers, and these questions can well be discussed in Select Committee. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) raised the question of the position of the men on the Government steamships. At the present time I am not prepared to commit the administration to admit them, but at the same time a prima facie case has been made out for their admission to the fund, I would like to discuss the matter with the actuary, and if it is found possible to deal with the men permanently employed on the steamships I hope we shall be able to do something by which their position will be met. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) suggested making the 29 days into 30 days. He is a hard task-master. I thought that by conceding the extra three days per month I was doing as well as I could under the circumstances. However. I do not blame him. I think I have gone far enough and by increasing the pension of our daily-paid men by 12 per cent. I am doing as much as can be expected. He also raised the point of inducing the members of the staff, who are not members of the fund, to join, and to get members of the old pension fund to transfer to the new fund. I think that is an excellent suggestion, and the superannuation fund committee has dealt with it. As soon as the Bill is passed I shall ask a number of our officers to tour the country and to explain the terms of the Act to the staff. In conclusion, I wish to pay a word of tribute to the public servants for their willingness to increase their contributions to the fund. They might well have said that the State should have done its share, but in all my dealings with the staff I never found one single individual who was not prepared to do his share and contribute on a higher scale. That is the spirit in which we can solve our difficulties.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

seconded.

Does The Minister not think that the old superannuation fund should be abolished?

. The hon. member must confine himself to the question of the Select Committee.

Could the matter be brought up in the Select Committee?

I do not think the hon. member can go into the question of the Bill.

The motion does not say anything about the Select Committee taking evidence.

If we are going to accept evidence some witnesses may come from far distant parts, and then it would be quite impossible to report within fourteen days.

The Minister must add to his motion “with power to take evidence and call for papers.” I will propose that if the Minister is not going to move it.

I do not think it is necessary, for it is the practice in such a case for the committee to take evidence.

If the committee cannot finish its labours within a fortnight it can come to the House for further time.

It may be as well that the staff all over the country should know that we do not propose to take evidence from a large number of witnesses. I suggest that we take the evidence of one or two members each of Salstaff, Nurahs, the running men organization, and two representatives of the artizans, making eight in all. I think that will fully meet the case. The staff organizations, and other members of the staff, have had the Bill before them for some time, so that I think we shall be able to deal with the matter in fourteen days. Should that not be possible, we can always come to the House and ask for further time. At this stage I think it is wise to fix fourteen days.

Motion put and agreed to.

On the native affairs vote I have, in the past, advocated that a separate portfolio should be set apart for this department and that it should be entirely apart from that of the Prime Minister, whose pre-occupations as the first citizen of the Union are sufficiently great to occupy his time fully without having to attend to affairs connected with the administration of native matters throughout the Union. We are well aware that, whilst the other portfolios deal with the affairs of a department only, the portfolio of native affairs deals with the affairs of a nation, and it would be of interest if the Prime Minister could tell us how many hours per month he will find himself able to devote to the portfolio of native affairs. We should like to know whether with the limited time at his disposal what degree of progress he will be able to make in connection with his policy of segregation which is already overdue. On two occasions the Prime Minister has announced we shall have to wait for this policy for another year. We must possess our souls in patience and wait for his announcement in the next session of Parliament. I should like to ask if the movement amongst the natives of a national kind, has come to his notice, aiming at a federation of the natives throughout South Africa with tribal autonomy for each tribe with certain definite aims in view. I think it is well established that some such movement is afoot in Zululand, and it has taken the form there of the collection of a national fund, but the purpose to which it is to be applied is not very clear. It has been stated that this movement aims at the federation of all native races south of the Zambezi leaving each chief of tribe with full control and, in fact, increasing his power, but subject, in certain matters, to the edicts of a central committee. It aims at the organization of all supplies of labour to industries requiring them, which would have to arrange with depots for that purpose, and for the collection of moneys from the natives with the object of paying their taxes in bulk to the Government. These are among the aims set out in a declaration, signed by a native, dealing with this subject, and I shall be glad if the Prime Minister will let us know if he has any information, and if it is advisable to impart it to the House. There seems to be no secrecy about the movement, and there should be no delicacy in referring to it here. We are anxious to hear what progress has been made in the administration of the Native Urban Areas Act passed in 1923. It is a useful measure, and the administration depends very largely upon the framing of the regulations which the Government is empowered to adopt under the Act. There seems to have been slow progress in the direction of applying the regulations, and there is a great need in the urban areas for the enforcement of better housing for natives and generally improving the conditions which were in view when the Act was brought into force. On health matters it seems to me a great deal could be done to prevent overcrowding and the unhealthy and immoral conditions growing up in the neighbourhood of every town. I hope the Prime Minister will enlighten us as to progress made in connection with the framing of uniform regulations which will have application throughout the Union. There is one point in regard to the question of segregation which I should like the Prime Minister to deal with, and that is the relation which the colour bar Bill may bear to that project. I think it was announced by the Minister of Mines that this was the first instalment of the segregation policy of the Government. Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us whether it is so, and in what particular direction and with what limitation he proposes to apply that first instalment of the policy of segregation and what control he as Minister of Native Affairs will exercise in the enforcement of that Act, in so far as it relates to the policy of segregation. I wish to refer again to the telegram the Prime Minister sent to the Transkei in general Council in reply to their request to be allowed to appear at the Bar of this House. I should like to draw the attention of the committee to the wording of the request from the Transkeian General Council. Their request was a specific one. They said—

They wished to be heard with regard to a specific subject, “the colour bar provisions in the Mines and Works Amendment Bill,” and I wish to point out that the Prime Minister’s reply dealt with that subject and gave them the promise that—

There was no qualification here as to the points upon which they would give evidence, and in the absence of qualifications we must take it the Prime Minister referred to their request to give evidence on the subject of the “colour bar provisions under the Mines and Works Bill.” The Prime Minister stands in the—

The hon. member’s time has expired.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister one question and it will not come as a surprise to him. He will remember a deputation some weeks ago which drew attention to a certain congested area in the vicinity of Port White. I would like to ask him what has been done to relieve the congestion.

I want to put a question to the Minister of Native Affairs regarding the disturbing reports in the press on the state of native opinion on the Rand because of the proposed enforcement of the law in regard to native women’s passes. According to the press report there seems to be a great deal of agitation amongst the native community and they seem to be threatening the inauguration of a passive resistance campaign which if carried on to any large extent will have a disturbing effect up there. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what policy is behind this Act and what steps are being taken with regard to the agitation.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made under item c (1) on page 24 “Native interpreters and clerks.” Last session we raised the question in regard to replacing native interpreters by Europeans. It has been found in practice in Natal that these native interpreters are unreliable and that there are plenty of qualified Europeans to take these places and that they are more reliable and efficient. There is another question that is in vote (e)—

We know there are a great many native sheep, cross-bred sheep which carry scab, in fact they are the worst offenders on four legs in existence. I want to know what the Government is doing to eradicate diseases in these native locations. Are they using the cattle dipping tanks? If so, they will never eradicate the scab and we know the native owners of these sheep in order to convert them into cash have to traverse these sheep through the areas occupied by Europeans. We know the way the roads are infected by them and they are a constant dread to the European farmers. There is a point in vote (f)—

I think it is high time the Government took into consideration the question of extending the irrigation works at the native locations. Under previous Governments, where rivers are running through native locations—or to take one instance in my mind the River Tugela, money was well spent in conducting irrigation works there and the expenditure has been amply justified. The natives have made good and have gone in for intensive culture and have justified the spending of the money. These locations could carry a larger population if this policy is enlarged upon and where it has been done crops such as tobacco and cotton are being grown as well as their own food stuff. In seasons of drought natives are the ones who suffer most. It seems to me unfair that greater progress should not be made in the development of these locations. Many of us here are representing a very large population of natives and these unfortunate people, who are the greatest asset that South Africa has in regard to its development, are, it seems to me, being given a very poor return by us in not helping them to develop those areas which are allocated to them. We know that the land which they occupy is, possibly, the richest land in this dominion, provided they get water. In these dry areas, if they have proper implements and proper instruction, and go in for deep ploughing so as to preserve the moisture when it does fall, I am sure the return they receive from their lands will be very much increased and the distress of these people would be lessened.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister what the policy of the Government is as regards the importation of contract native labour for the gold-mining industry. I believe I am correct in stating that the ordinary taxpayer, in carrying out the principles of the Mozambique treaty—although it is in abeyance at the present time, I understand its principle is still carried out—are paying roughly £175.000 to the Portuguese authorities in return for cheap labour for the mines of this country. I believe we have to allow one-third of the import trade, as near as possible, of the Transvaal to enter by Delagoa Bay. Through customs, harbour, railway and other sources, an advantage of, roughly, the amount I stated is obtained by the Portuguese authorities, and I would like to ask the Prime Minister if it is fair that the ordinary taxpayer of the Union should have to pay that amount for the special privilege of one industry.

How do we pay that?

Through loss of revenue.

Last year I suggested to the Prime Minister that, before defining and deciding upon a native policy, he should take a trip through the native areas of this country and see for himself, at first hand, the development that has taken place in the past and what future development may take place in those areas. He promised in this House that he would do so. I went back to my constituency and told the natives, and they were very pleased to hear that he intended to come into their midst. We have not seen him yet. I can quite understand that he was extremely busy, having recently taken over the reins of office, and I would like to ask him whether he still intends paying a visit to the native areas. I think it is too late for him now to say that he will decide upon his native policy after visiting those territories. As far as I can see, the policy is, more or less, decided upon now. At the same time I think that the natives of the Transkei and the Eastern Province are looking forward to this visit. Another point I would submit to the notice of the Prime Minister is that at an earlier stage of the proceedings in this House he stated that, owing to the want of policy of the past Government in carrying out the Native Lands Act there was very little land available to place at the disposal of natives and, therefore, he found it very necessary to settle upon a land segregation policy. A few days ago the Minister of Mines stated in this House that the Prime Minister had informed him that there are plenty of areas for the natives, that there is plenty of ground, and that they could acquire ground on the fairest and most reasonable terms. This was information to this House and to the natives of this country, and I would like the Prime Minister to state where this ground may be obtained, the condition under which it may be obtained, and whether the Government is prepared to assist the natives in acquiring this land. The third question I would like to touch upon is the point raised by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), and that is the development of the natives. Last session the Prime Minister made this statement—

He has been in office now for a period of a year, and I would like to ask whether the present Government has in any shape or form attempted to teach the natives how to make better use of their ground and increase the development of native areas generally. I may say, for the information of the Prime Minister, that the natives are complaining that they cannot get any information from the officials as to where this land which they might acquire lies and the conditions under which it may be acquired.

I see under the heading “Relief of Distress.” £250, a similar amount to what was provided last year. A few months ago a representative deputation of hon. members of this House interviewed the Prime Minister and laid before him the position as regards distress existing in parts of the Cis-Keian territories. The Prime Minister promised the deputation that enquiries would be made, and I understand an official of the department has been sent round to these parts to enquire. Since then we have heard nothing whatever of that investigation, and I would like to hear from the Prime Minister what the Government intends to do to relieve distress there, because I consider that £250 is a scandalous amount to put on the Estimates for the relief of distress among natives, seeing that we have a matter of 5,000,000 natives to provide for. It would appear as if they were in an exceedingly prosperous condition when a sum of £250 is put on the Estimates for the relief of distress. Although rain has fallen recently, it came too late for the crops, and these poor people will have nothing to fall back upon until about December. I would like to point out at the same time that it is scarcely possible for the natives of these areas to do the necessary cultivation, because last year they lost at least 75 per cent. of their cattle. The position is a very serious one, and I think the Government should do something to relieve the position there. Another matter is that there are only nine demonstrators who teach the natives how to cultivate their land. We should have hundreds of them; if the Government would assist the natives in this way, it would be a very good thing. I hope the Prime Minister will give us some information on these points.

On page 110, vote 3, a sum of £26,000 is put down for subsidies and allowances to chiefs and headmen, Griquas included. I should like to know from the Minister of Native Affairs whether the son of Andries Waterboer is included therein. He is, so I am informed, actually a wanderer to-day who works at 10s. a week on the diggings. The feeling exists that it is unfair towards him and that something should be done for his maintenance. I should, therefore, like to know from the hon. Minister whether anything can be done for him, or otherwise whether his case can be enquired into.

The House will remember the Prime Minister informed us his idea was to leave segregation pretty well where it was, and one realizes the difficulty, but I would like to ask him whether the Government has considered the feasibility of purchasing ground bordering on native locations and native reserves. We know that ground is going up very much in the country, and we know the great difficulty with the native is to find ground for him, and it seems to me that if the only policy to-day is to more or less carry out the old scheme, we will wait a long time. It is high time the Government considered the feasibility of purchasing this land while the price is fairly low. Of course, it might have the effect of sending up the price if they said they were going to buy it. I do not know whether it would be politic for the Prime Minister to give a full reply, but I would like to know if the Government would consider the feasibility of the suggestion.

There is a question relating to the visit of the Native Affairs Commission to Natal, upon which I desire information. The commission was sent to Natal by the Prime Minister to ascertain the feeling of the Europeans in regard to the setting aside of native areas under future legislation recommended by the Natal Local Native Lands Committee in the report of 1918. When the Prime Minister was asked to lay on the table of the House the report of that commission he declined to do so on the ground that it was a report intended for his own information but I should like to point out that under the Native Affairs Act of 1920, there was certainly the intention that where the Prime Minister disagreed with the recommendations of that commission the information should reach Parliament. Section 3 of the Act expresses that intention—

I do not mean to say that the commission has insisted upon that course, but it seems to me that the refusal of the Prime Minister is against the spirit of this section of the Act. We have reason to believe that the Native Affairs Commission upon the evidence brought before it must have come to the conclusion that it was quite impossible to legislate in the manner proposed against the strong feeling that was expressed at every meeting objecting to any further native areas being set apart in Natal. I ask the Prime Minister to consider the desirability of removing from a large number of farms in Natal the embargo that at present is placed upon them by reason of the fact that they are included in potential native areas. When I say that, I wish to point out that there is no law setting apart these farms as native areas, but for some time past the Native Affairs Department has held that any area which was recommended by the Beaumont Commission and the Natives Land Local Committee should be regarded as a potential native area. There is a very strong feeling in Natal against the continuance of this policy. It is felt that the time has arrived when the embargo should be removed, and that there should be taken away an incubus which prevents European expansion and development in Natal. I should like the Prime Minister to let us have a declaration of policy in this regard. There is another matter which is agitating the minds of natives in Natal, and that is as to whether the Prime Minister is a party to the cutting away of the powers of the native high court. This is a special court dealing with native matters, civil and criminal; and it has been announced, and I believe a Bill has been framed, for the taking away of certain powers in regard to appeals from the magistrates’ courts to the native high court. Thai is looked upon by the natives as the possible beginning of the complete abolition of this court, and if that were the intention of the Government it would be much regretted by the natives, and would cause the complete dislocation of the well-known and well-established system which exists in Natal for dealing with native litigation. I hope the Prime Minister will be able to give us a pronouncement on that question which will relieve the minds of the people concerned. I was referring to the movement noticed in various parts of the Union for the federation of the natives, and I should like to call the Prime Minister’s attention to one of the declared aims of the movement—

What are you reading from?

I am reading from a letter from a native. The letter continues

Our idea is that a minimum wage for native labour should be fixed at £5 per month for all agricultural work, together with food of a proper quality, as provided by some of the mines with higher rates for drivers, milkers, etc. For mines and factories we shall aim at a minimum of £7 10s. per month with proper rations, or £10 per month without. It goes on to say that they hope the Minister of Labour will bring, in a Bill to that effect.

What paper is that?

They are very much alive to the movement going on, and their effort would he to improve their condition. No one blames them for that, but it seems to me that this movement should be within the knowledge of the Prime Minister. I have indicated that in Zululand it has come within my knowledge that Chief Solomon is collecting what he is pleased to call a national fund from the Zulus. The purpose of that fund is unknown, although it is said to be a very wide scheme for the education of the natives in Zululand, where the natives are very backward, and certainly any scheme for the education of the backward people there would not appeal to them to any large extent. But there is quite a considerable response being made for a national fund, and I should be glad if the Prime Minister would tell us what his opinion is with regard to that particular movement. On the estimates, I observe that one-half the cost of the maintenance of the N’dabeni location is borne by the Department of Native Affairs. That seems to me an anomalous position, because in other urban areas the entire cost of these locations is borne by the local authority. I should be glad if the Prime Minister would tell us whether there is any particular reason why the Government should bear one-half the cost of this location. I understand it has now been taken over by the Cape Town municipality. The charge for the maintenance of that location was formerly borne by the Department of Native Affairs.

I am sorry the hon. member’s time has expired.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Native Affairs in reference to the vote under clause C (1)—the nine demonstrators for service in the native territories. Coming from Queenstown where we have large areas occupied by natives, I can say that there is a constant appeal from them as to when they are going to get these demonstrators to teach them to plough and to cultivate their ground. I may say that nine are totally inadequate for the whole Union, and I would appeal to the Minister to do his best to arrange for a very much larger number to go through the province and give the natives the assistance which they are anxious to receive. We all recognize that, after all, the welfare of the native is very important in this country, and if we can, in any way, assist them to become more self-supporting in respect of their reserves and areas, in cultivating the soil and increasing their crops, we are not only going to give them the benefit of further wealth, but, we know the native is a spender of what he produces, and, therefore, as a consumer and a spender he would be an advantage to the general community and his requirements would be increasing. We have to remember that the native, although he goes out to work and cultivates in a rough and ready way, does, after all, live on the border line of starvation. When a drought occurs we find huge masses of natives in the Union who have to receive assistance from the Government in one form or another, to carry them through, and so I feel it would be a wise and politic action for the Government to assist these natives. On this point, I would make the suggestion to the Minister that if it can be done in some way, that the native should be encouraged and taught to use better seed according to the particular area in which he lives. We all know that certain mealies will do better in certain areas. I would not ask the Minister to supply the natives with the seed; I do not want to pauperize them in that way; but if some method could be devised so that they could purchase the right kind of seed, which the agriculture experts advise, it would increase the production of their lands, and not only give them more to live on, but make them an asset as consumers and spenders.

I should like to raise a point on which there is a good deal of public concern. I believe the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has already referred to it, but I should like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister more particularly to it. The point is as to the progress being made with the application of the Urban Areas Act. The position in this country seems to me to be getting very grave, in connection with the influx of natives to the big centres. We know what has been happening in recent years; so far from the natives finding work and employment in their own areas, they have been flocking in ever increasing numbers to the great industrial centres, and the great centres of white population, and as a result we have conditions growing up in all these centres of a very serious character. There are no proper locations to receive them; there is no employment for them, and they are adding to the unemployment class in those great centres and they are adding in a very acute form to the social problems which arise in these centres. It is under these circumstances that we passed the Urban Areas Act two years ago, and that Act was intended to deal with the situation. It gave powers to the local authorities and the central Government which we deemed to be adequate. If there ever was a case for segregation this is the case where we find a great stream of cemi-barbarism flowing into our towns unchecked, uncontrolled and creating such a situation as years ago did not exist, and would have been deemed almost impossible. This is the situation which is growing up before our eyes to-day. It is an aspect of the segregation question which appeals to me more particularly, and one we ought to deal with As a result two years ago we passed that Act which made this provision, that in all these big areas of industry or white population the central Government would have the power to proclaim them under the Act, very much on the lines we do on the Witwatersrand. That is to say the natives who go there seeking employment would be given a pass for a limited period in which they could look for work. They would go to a Government depot, and would receive a document entitling them to search for employment. If, however, they did not find work within the prescribed period they could be dealt with, and if there was no work for them within that area they could be sent back. It seems to me that unless we make use of the powers given us the Urban Areas Act we shall drift into an impossible situation in these big centres. I hope that that Act—one of the most important that has ever been passed in this country and giving very far-reaching powers to both the local authorities and the central Government—will not be allowed to become a dead letter. I know there have been very grave difficulties in some of the areas such as Cape Town, a special location having to be prepared for natives living amongst the whites. In Johannesburg similarly there is no location for the natives living in the town. While we are waiting for the preparation of these locations the evil is assuming such dimensions that afterwards we may find it impossible to cope with it. I should like the Prime Minister to give to the House such information as he has of the putting into force of the Act. To my mind the putting into force fairly and justly of this Act would lead to one of the greatest reforms. We must have urban segregation, and we must prevent this intolerable influx of the native population to the centres of white population. We foresaw that and this Parliament has actually dealt with the question. All that is required now is to make use of the provisions of the Act, to see them put into force and for the central Government to see that the local authorities exercise their powers. The initiative lies with the Government, which has to proclaim those areas, I do not know whether that step has been taken or whether such a proclamation has been issued here in the Peninsula or other great centres of population. If it has not been done I hope the matter will not be allowed to slide and that the Native Affairs Department and the Prime Minister, as the responsible Minister, will not allow the position merely to drift, for here is a ease in which we have the power. We need not look for the shaping of some future measure of segregation and it is simply a case of justly and fairly applying the law. There is a great deal of public concern over the matter, and I hope the Prime Minister will be able to tell the committee to-night what steps are being taken to put the provisions of the Act into force, and to see that the spirit and letter of that very great reform of two years ago are being carried out.

It is within the recollection of many hon. members of this House that when the Urban Areas Bill was discussed there was a considerable divergence of opinion as to whether land in such areas as would be established under the Act should be held by the natives concerned in freehold or in leasehold: eventually it was decided that the tenure should be leasehold. I have discussed this matter at many meetings with natives and I find that very strong view’s are held on the question of leasehold versus freehold. These people feel that the Government must realize that many of them have taken up their permanent residence in the towns, their families are growing up in these towns and will have no home ties with the land which their parents left. They have the very laudable and natural ambition of acquiring homes of their own, freehold homes, which they can improve and develop and on which they can spend their earnings knowing that they are doing so on their own property. I do commend to the Government that the natives’ viewpoint is a very reasonable one and I do ask the Minister to give it his very careful consideration.

A question of a good deal of importance to the native and the European population is the policy of the Government in connection with native education. Is the Government going to allow native education to remain in the hands of the provincial councils, or—in view of the fact that the Government has taken away the right of the provincial councils to tax the natives—is the Government going to take over the development of native education? In this province, at any rate, the provincial council is in this position; it has not the right to tax the natives, yet the native has the right to sit in the provincial council and impose taxation on the European. That seems to me to be an anomaly. The position is this, that the natives in this country are developing rapidly along educational lines, and as a native educational policy will have to be developed over the whole Union, it should lie in the hands of this House. I understand it is intended to establish secondary schools under church control. In the opinion of many concerned such schools should be undenominational. Missionaries have done a good deal of good in the past, but there is a good deal of jealousy amongst the various bodies. One missionary body comes along and wants to start a church in a native area, and other missionaries come forward and say they want the same right. The same position is going to arise in regard to secondary education. Instead of one or two areas in the native territory where we can give them a good secondary, as well as agricultural and industrial education, we shall have four or five or six or seven mission bodies coming along, each claiming a secondary school. The question of native education is one of paramount importance, and it is not a matter which ought to be left in the hands of the Provincial Council, and I would like to hear from the Prime Minister what his policy is. Then I would also like to know something on the question of the status of native chiefs. Positions are different in the different provinces, and recently in some of the districts visited by the Prince of Wales, some of those tribes who had no chief have awakened to the fact and are asking that sons or relatives of old chiefs should be re instated. During the visit of the Prince of Wales there was jealousy among the chiefs. One chief was presented first and other chiefs who were presented afterwards thought they had suffered a slight. Those tribes which have no chiefs are asking why they should not have a chief because other tribes have them. I should like to know if the matter is being considered. Another point arises in the Vote on “Transport.” In the Transkei, magistrates are situated at considerable distances from the railhead, and where a magistrate dies a long way from the railhead his widow is left fifty or sixty miles from the railway with parents living in Cape Town or in one of the cities, and I ask the Prime Minister if it is not possible to arrange for the transport of her furniture and effects when she is left in that position. There is also a question concerning the constitution of the Native Affairs Commission. The Prime Minister stated yesterday that the Native Affairs Commission had been consulted on certain matters in which natives were affected. He seems to think it was sufficient, and that they represented the natives and were entitled to give evidence and speak for the natives. The natives themselves feel they are not kept in sufficient touch with the Commission. They do not travel sufficiently through the country. Recently a Commission went up to a certain native territory and told the natives that the Government had decided on a policy, and the natives put up their case. The Commission promised to return, but the natives never saw them again. During the last few years I have travelled considerably amongst the natives and they feel the Commission does not represent their views and does not keep in sufficient touch with them: If the Prime Minister wishes to keep the confidence of the natives he will realize it is the duty of the Commission to come into more intimate contact with the natives.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) on the question of the Union Government taking over the whole of the education of natives from the provincial councils. The natives themselves feel there is a tremendous inequality in the systems of the various provinces. I should like to quote a few figures, showing how great this inequality is. The amount received in the Cape Province in direct taxation from the natives is £160,000 but the Cape is spending, or did spend in the last financial year, £250,000 on native education, practically the whole of which was contributed by the Union Government. Natal raised £219,000 in direct taxation from the natives, but Natal only spent £55.000 on native education. In the Transvaal £425,000 was so raised, and again only £55,000 was spent in native education. In the Free State £75,000 was raised in direct taxation, and £15.000 was expended in native education. Now the natives appreciate to the full the meaning of these figures, and that natives in one colony are receiving a liberal education and that they are being starved in adjoining provinces. The Cape is rather proud of its educational system, but I don’t think the other provinces would have the slightest hesitation in giving up control of native education, and the Native Affairs Department would have no objection in taking over that control. The request for this has been increasing in volume by natives and it is a real question with them to-day. They feel that the best interests of native education would be served if the Government would take over its control and administer it entirely for the whole of the four provinces, and I would ask the Prime Minister to sympathetically consider their wishes. There, is another matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister. As he knows, the district of Griqualand East takes its name from the Griqua people. They are a people of mixed descent and a people who have advanced a good many strides on the ladder of civilization, but they are in an extraordinarily anomalous position. They do not know, and I do not think the Government have ever decided, whether they are classed as natives or coloured people. Under the Urban Areas Act. Mr. F. S. Malan, who was acting Minister of Native Affairs, on one occasion assured the Griquas that they would be treated as the Malays in the Cape were treated under that Act. When it comes to taxation, we know that the provinces are not allowed to impose direct taxation on natives, but the Griquas, who own a considerable amount of fixed property are subject to the provincial property tax, that is to say they are not regarded as natives, so far as taxation is concerned. But in the Liquor Act, which is applied to the territories, it is specifically stated that the word “native” shall mean Fingo, Basuto, Griqua, etc. In view of the colour bar in the Mines and Works Act Amendment Bill, which, we understand, will shortly become law, a very important question is raised, because you have now got to decide whether you are going to give these Griqua people a right which they claim, and I hold rightly claim, is theirs of being ranked with the coloured people, which will exempt them from certain very severe restrictions which the colour bar in that Bill will impose, and I do ask the Prime Minister to make a clear statement and set the minds of these people at rest and to say—

As regards the liquor law, I do not ask that they should be allowed to obtain unlimited liquor, which would be a mistake, but I ask that that slur which is put upon them by the wording of that Act should be removed. In regard to the liquor laws, I think there is a great need for amendment in those laws in the native territories. The position is most anomalous. Today the Griquas, a coloured people, are not allowed to get liquor, yet if one of these same people moved out into the Cape Province and there grow up—

I am afraid the hon. member (Mr. Gilson) is now advocating new legislation.

No. I am not advocating new legislation; I am advocating the necessity of revising existing legislation. May I ask the Prime Minister’s opinion as to the necessity of future legislation?

The hon. member may ask a question, but he is not allowed to make a speech in connection with it.

May I make a certain explanation in order to make my position intelligible? I only want to explain the existing position and to ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on the matter. If a coloured man, who has the status of a coloured man, lives in a location, he is under the existing liquor laws barred from purchasing liquor, but if that same man’s brother lives outside a location he can get unlimited liquor.

I think the hon. member has said quite enough on that point.

I would ask the Prime Minister if he could not adopt the principle which obtains, for instance, in South-West Africa and say that no liquor shall be supplied to non-Europeans. It is not that I want to see the privilege increased; I want to see the anomalies done away with.

I think the hon. member had said enough to elucidate his question.

Very well. It is a very difficult question and I am sorry you have not allowed me to discuss it.

May I rise to a point of order? The hon. member is discussing an ordinary question of the law in this country, whether the Griquas may buy liquor under certain conditions. Why shouldn’t he discuss this question.

The hon. member has suggested new legislation, that is to say, alterations in the existing law. I am afraid we cannot advocate new legislation under this Vote.

With all deference, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was not speaking about legislation, but was asking a question on status, on the different rights of people in the territory. I did not understand him to claim that the law should be altered. He was simply giving expression to this grievance.

The hon. member may express a grievance but he is not allowed to plead for new legislation. I am sorry to have to stop him, but I have to maintain the rules of the Committee. I should like to give as much scope to members as I possibly can, but I have to adhere to the rules myself.

The ruling is he cannot proceed?

He may proceed, but he cannot advocate fresh legislation.

This is a Vote on administration of native affairs generally.

Of course, if the hon. member wishes to discuss administration, it is quite proper for him to do so.

The Prime Minister’s attention is being drawn, by the hon. member, to the difficulties which exist in these territories. How else is the position to be remedied? The Prime Minister is in charge of the department and hon. members certainly have the right to discuss these anomalies, grievances and other difficulties in regard to the natives generally, and the administration of laws in native territory. I hope you will not draw this question too narrowly, because otherwise you must rule at almost every point that members are debarred from discussing certain points because fresh legislation is required.

I am very loth to mix in this as it is my Vote, but for our guidance I would like to say a few words. I am a little surprised to hear the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) speaking as he does when we remember the rulings we have had from time to time from him.

I was never Chairman of Committees.

No, but in the House. I remember an instance where an appeal was made from the Committee, a ruling. What, I would submit is this, that there is no doubt—the hon. member said so himself—that what he really wanted to know was whether there could not be legislation, and he was going to put the question to me. I quite agree that in such cases you must discuss it to a certain point, but in fairness to the Chairman it must be left to him to say when that point is reached. I am only saying these few words in order that we may be guided correctly in future. Let us put the question to the Minister that there is something requiring rectification, but do not let us go further so as to really discuss future legislation.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask your ruling on this point? You say I must not discuss future legislation; but I would point out that the administration of the native territories, strictly speaking, does not require any legislation. Anything in the nature of administrative acts can be done by proclamation, therefore, if I suggest a proclamation to the Prime Minister. I submit I shall not be discussing future legislation?

If the hon. member discusses what can be done by proclamation, he will be in order.

This matter can be dealt with by proclamation. In the native territories you get a certain class of coloured man who, by virtue of his having acquired domicile in the Cape Province, can freely obtain liquor. Some of these people are, in certain cases, a source of danger. They are the intermediary between the liquor sellers and the natives. The Griquas are not allowed to obtain liquor. These men are buying liquor and they are a danger to the community, as they are supplying prohibited persons with liquor, and I think it would be greatly in the interests of the territories if, by proclamation, the territories were placed on the same basis as South-West Africa, and if the sale of liquor were prohibited to all non Europeans. At present any prohibited persons can obtain permits from the magistrate, if they are respectable people. I do not want to infringe on any person’s rights, no matter what their race or colour may be, to obtain liquor in necessary quantities for medicine and for personal comfort and so on, provided it is not in excess: but I think what I have suggested would best meet conditions in the native territories. I would be most liberal in issuing such permits, as I know personally that very many coloured people and natives will no more abuse such privileges than any other members of the community, but I do feel that the suggestion I make will enable the authorities better to control the abuses which now exist.

I wish to answer, first, the series of questions put by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). He asked whether I did not think that there should be a separate portfolio of native affairs. Well, if it came to a question of work. I would certainly say yes, but with a view to what has always been held by this House and those who have been most familiar with native sentiment, and what we have always been told and are still told to-day, namely, that the portfolio of native affairs should not be separated from the Prime Minister’s office, I am afraid I shall have to follow the old path and say I think it should not be separated. Thu hon. member wants to know how many hours per month I have found myself able to devote to native affairs.

Where is your time book?

Unfortunately, I am not very much of a mathematician, so I cannot tell. He asked when I would be prepared to take a step forward re segregation, I think the hon. member had better—

Wait and see.

Yes, he had better wait and see. Then he asked as to a movement among the natives in Zululand. As far as that is concerned the Chief Native Commissioner has informed the department that there was a movement amongst the natives there, and I need hardly say that I think it may be said of most of the native areas that there always is some kind of movement or noise, but he informed us, at the same time, that so far as he can find, there is nothing serious pending and certainly that the movement is not gaining any ground. An hon. member says that the Minister of Mines calls the Urban Areas Act the first step towards segregation. No doubt he thought it had something to do with segregation. No doubt it has, but, so far as I am concerned, it is not my beginning yet. As to control, that is a matter for the Minister of Industries, and the Cabinet as a whole. With regard to Transkeian General Council, I see there is a good deal of fuss made in the papers and a good deal of fuss has been made about it in this House. I do not know whether hon. members are really anxious to assist the Government in preventing any agitation arising on false ground, but I must honestly say, if I look back upon the discussion which has taken place in this House, and I look at the articles in the “Cape Times” and the “Cape Argus,” then I do feel that there are some people who are not very anxious that really the natives’ minds should be so much at rest as they pretend to be. I say this, quite advisedly, because I think nothing more pernicious could be done, and to announce from these benches and to go outside on platforms, or in the papers, and to pour out to the natives—because in the first place what has been done in the papers outside I have no doubt is directed with a view to meeting the native vote. Whether the native vote is worth the evil which has been done as far as the Europeans are concerned and the interests of South Africa, generally, are concerned, I don’t know. So far as I am concerned I would rather make them a present of all the native votes, provided they would act otherwise. Let me refer directly to this request from the Transkei General Council and the manner in which it is being sought to draw an inference from what I have done and what my colleague, the Minister of Mines has done, that is calculated, and nobody can deny it, to stir up feeling with the natives. What has taken place? When this Bill was before Parliament, this so-called Colour Bar Bill, I received a communication that natives from the Transkeian General Council should be heard before the bar of this House. I said I was not going to allow it, and I am perfectly sure this House would not have accepted it. It is a request which has been made to my predecessors in this House over and over again and the House has refused it. So far as I am concerned, I went to the elections upon the question of the colour bar, and I take it if there was anything on which we were returned to where we are to-day it was that question, and I was certainly not going to open this extraordinary way for natives to appear at the bar of the House to plead that, the general principles of the Bill should not be accepted, for that is the only opinion I can come to, according to what I see in the papers. Who were the natives who asked for this? The natives of the Transkeian General Council, and these natives are represented in this House. They have the vote in the Cape Province, they are represented in the House where their interests, I should think, are being sufficiently well looked after. They have the vote on the same footing as the white man and they evidently must have overlooked the fact they had representatives in the House. On what ground could you find fault with my action in so far as I told them I was not prepared to support them in being heard at the bar of the House. This makes it all the more reprehensible on the part of members in this House and more reprehensible still on the part of important newspapers to act as they have done in order to get a few votes, to act in a way in which they are prepared to tell the natives that his interests are intentionally being neglected, to say the least of it. We must also consider this, since, in 1913, the segregation policy was adopted, the Cape native is the only native, or rather is the native, who has throughout won by this policy without losing anything, whereas in the other provinces the native has been curtailed in his right to acquire land, receiving at the same time, of course, the advantage that the European is forbidden in future to go and purchase his land within his reserves, etc. Your Cape native has received the full advantages of, in future, not being ousted or of being protected to such an extent that he cannot be ousted by the white man coming in and buying his land, but he has retained the full power of purchasing land any and everywhere within the Cape Province. Now, it is rather strange, with regard to this question of the so-called colour bar, which, in the first place, aims at the restoration of an Act which has been applicable to the Transvaal, that while they have asked to appear at the Bar of the House, no application of such a nature has come from any of the other provinces, as far as I know. At any rate, they asked me to appear at the Bar of the House, and I say again, and I say advisedly, that I would not have supported that, because I was not going to give way on that question. The people had confirmed it, the Government had declared it to be its policy and we were going to stand by it. As far as that is concerned, at any rate, it is clear and it is definite. Well, then I told them, at the same time, that after the Bill had been accepted I would give them the opportunity of giving evidence before the Select Committee. Well, after the Bill was in select committee I spoke to my friend the Minister of Mines and Industries and I reminded him that I had said to the council that when the Bill was in committee they could come and give evidence, and I was busy writing a letter to them when he came to me and said that the time was too short for a letter; he would send a wire. As I was afraid that they might send natives who would not know upon what they were to give evidence I agreed with him that I should tell them that, as far as the general principle of the Bill was concerned, no evidence would be taken or could be taken, and that, therefore, they could come, but, in order that they might know what kind of men to send and how many, I asked him to let them know that they could send, if they still thought it necessary to send, men to come and give evidence, but that that evidence, of course, could only be of such a kind as the law would allow. That is to say, to see and advise how best to promote a Bill which would comply with the general principle. He sent the telegram to the Council and, to my mind, perfectly rightly so. I think it would have been perfectly wrong on my part, or on his part, if we had simply sent a wire, “Send your witnesses,” without indicating to them, at the same time, that they must not send a number of men with the idea of coming here and giving evidence upon the advisability of having or not having such a law. That is what happened and I say this, that it is most unfair—but we can leave that aside—and it is most pernicious; and any man who thinks for a moment what the influence must be upon the mind of the native when he is told, as he is being told, and has been during the last few days, that this Government, and I myself, have been cheating him, and are trying to cheat him—I say that no man who takes that into consideration, if he has the least feeling for the interests of his country and the white man, could think of saying a thing like that. I can only say I regret it most deeply and I do think that those who act in this way will some day, I am afraid, when it is too late—

Who decided that the natives should only give evidence not on the question of the principle of the Bill?

The hon. gentleman evidently does not know the rudiments of his own rules of the House. When this House has accepted the general principle of a Bill—

The wires had been sent before the House had accepted any principle.

The wire was sent on the 18th May.

The first wire?

That is when I refused to hear them at the bar of the House. What has that to do with it? Well, it shows the flimsy grounds—and the hon. member gives me the impression that he is a participant in this movement and in this mischief that is being done—it just shows the flimsy manner in which people will go about doing the utmost mischief without even knowing what they are doing. The hon. member for East London (City) (Rev. Mr. Rider) wants to know what has been done to relieve congestion at Fort White. Well, there was some other gentleman, I think, who saw me with the hon. member and I may say that, as I promised, we immediately instituted an investigation; sent a person down there, I think Mr. Joubert, and he has reported that there is no necessity for any other assistance except seed for winter crops and seed wheat, and we immediately gave instructions to supply the natives with that, and this has been done. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has asked what is the policy behind the pass law agitation in Johannesburg.

No, I asked what was the present position on the Rand in regard to native women being required to carry passes.

That was what I took down when the hon. member was speaking, but do I understand he wishes to know the position with regard to native women carrying passes, as if so I think he should have addressed his question to the Minister of Justice. What is being done, so far as I know, is that it has been decided that after half past ten of a night no native woman shall be out on the street without a pass.

I wanted to know about the meetings of protest and agitation worked up on the Reef.

By whom?

I am not concerned about that.

I do not know of an agitation. What is it? I see the hon. member took it that I knew more than he did.

I take it you know there have been meetings of protest on the Reef, and that natives have threatened to go on strike.

I know very little about that. There are so many meetings taking place that I do not worry much about them until they are brought to my notice as being extraordinary. I expect the Minister of Justice to look after these things. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) wants to know what is being done regarding native interpreters. Do I understand that he is rather against interpreters?

Yes.

Well, I must say, in the first place, the native interpreters in my office are doing excellent work, but I do want to ask the hon. gentleman has he ever thought what he is now asking, namely, that European interpreters should be instituted in matters of native affairs, that is contrary to what I think should be done, and contrary to what every man in this House has held is fair, for if there is any place where a native should be employed in preference to a European is in the Department of Native Affairs.

He is not reliable.

If you say so as regards European courts I can quite understand it, and I would have no objection to the necessary steps being taken to have Europeans for a European court, but I do not think it is for us to say to the natives. “You may not be used in your own affairs,” and I have only to do with the Native Affairs Department. As far as that Department is concerned, and as far as matters pertaining to natives are concerned, it is proper for them to use natives, and they should be used in preference to Europeans. I am asked what is being done to eradicate scab. I heard the questioner the other day very strongly declaiming against simultaneous dipping. I may assure him that all the native sheep have to be dipped, and I do not think he is sorry that happened. They all had to dip their sheep and in order to make sure that there would be an effective dipping, it was done in close co-operation with and. I think, under the supervision of the Agricultural Department.

The scabby sheep were not dipped.

Well, I am very sorry to hear it but I cannot help it. I can only say what measures were taken, and I think if the hon. member knows of any case where it was not done, then he ought to bring it to the notice of the authorities. (Ministerial cheers.)

I intend to.

Were the sheep dipped in cattle dip?

That I do not know. Does it matter as long as they are dipped in the proper dip? They were dipped in proper sheep dip. No matter whether they used an iron tank or a cattle dip. Then he spoke about irrigation in native locations. That is, of course, one of the things where the department is anxious to assist in the development of agriculture amongst the natives. Irrigation will, of course, be necessary, and irrigation is already resorted to by natives, though not on a very wide scale. At the same time the department feels if there is anything that ought to be done in order to assist the native, it is to see he is taught the advantages of irrigation and that the necessary facilities are given to him. As the hon. member will know there is a native taxation Bill from which the main proceeds are to assist the natives in that development. That taxation Bill was to have been passed two years ago, but was not. It is coming in this year and will be brought on next week or the week after. Notice has already been given by the Minister of Finance about that, and a large part of the proceeds expected to be derived under that Bill is for the purpose of being devoted to this and similar things which will assist the development of industries and agriculture among the natives. I hope we shall have the means within a few years of doing something substantial so far as that is concerned. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) asked what policy the Government is going to assume as to contracted native labour. This is, of course, a very serious question, and so far the Government has not finally decided upon what it is going to do, but the hon. members may take it for granted it will certainly not be allowed to increase the percentage of labour they have to-day. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) was angry with me because I had violated my good word in not having gone to Tembuland. Really, when the hon. member spoke it reminded me of the other question of the request from the Transkei—

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee to-morrow.