I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

As I could not get in on the second reading I wish to take this opportunity to address a few remarks on the third reading. I would in the frist place like to express my thanks, and those of the people concerned, to the Railway authorities, to the Minister of Railways, to the System Manager at Port Elizabeth, and to the good people of Red house who were prepared to give assistance to the very poor community living in that area, and help them to get water when water was a very great and dire necessity. On account of the scarcity of water in the Port Elizabeth area the water supply of these people was cut off, and I want to express my appreciation to the authorities for the steps taken to supply water. The Railway Administration supplied water from Uitenhage by rail at half rates, but even then the cost amounted to 10s. per 1,000 gallons, and these coloured people and natives could not afford to pay that, and Mr. Anderson of Red-house thereupon helped to guarantee payment. After that the Native Affairs Department undertook payment and I also want to express thanks to them for coming to the assistance of the people. Normally the best way would have been to draw the water from the main from Uitenhage to Port Elizabeth which supplies the railways at Port Elizabeth, but on account of the scarcity of water at Port Elizabeth it was impossible to make full use of this. I would ask the Minister to get on with the business of building a reservoir at Swartkop for which £20,000 has been voted on a previous occasion. I hope the Minister and the Administration will make good use of the good times we are having in the Railway Administration to get on with the building of the Marshalling Yards and good sheds at Port Elizabeth. On account of the increased railway traffic it has become a dire necessity to get better facilities as regards marshalling yards and good sheds, and I do hope also that the Minister will get on with the building of a new station at Port Elizabeth. The present station is a very old building, it is obsolete, and if I may be allowed to make use of the phrase, it is nothing short of a disgrace to-day. The ordinary amenities in many cases are lacking, and as regards the offices there I can only describe them as very dingy, stuffy, musty cramped and a great danger to the personnel and to the public as well. I hope when a new building is contemplated and when plans are drawn it will be seen that all necessary conveniences for coloured people and Europeans are installed there.

There is no money; we have to see the war through.

I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without pleading for better service conditions for all these employees on the Railways, European as well as non-European, and I hope that all employees on the Railways will have full provision made for them in regard to the increased cost of living, and that the allowances paid will be adequate to meet present day conditions. The hon. member of Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley) has already referred to this matter but I again want to stress the point that we hope the Minister will get on with the house ownership scheme now when we are expecting a big surplus so that the employees will not have to wait for long periods for their turn to come to become owners of their own houses. I just want to say a few words in regard to the Midland Line. Tremendous improvements are needed on this line and in view of the large number of employees that will be required I hope the Administration will take into consideration the question of making use of the Italian prisoners who we believe are coming to this country. We do not grudge it to the Eastern Line, the line which goes to East London, but in view of the large amount which is spent on that line, we think that something more should be done for the Midland Line, and I think we have every right to state that Port Elizabeth will continue to be the best paying harbour in the Union and also the premier port. I also want to add my plea to those already made that if possible the fares for soldiers and sailors travelling on our Railways should be reduced—if at all possible these people should be allowed to travel entirely free of charge. Then with regard to the fishing harbour at Port Elizabeth I hope the Minister will also give his attention to that. In conclusion, I just want to plead with the Minister for the re-instatement of all the employees in the service of the Railways and Harbours after the war is over; especially those who could not get leave, and who were as it were compelled to resign from the service to do their duty by their country. For these especially I would plead with the Minister, and I have the greatest confidence that with his kindness of heart I shall not be appealing in vain.

Before the third reading of this Bill is taken I should like to take up the time of the House for a few minutes to raise a few matters to which I hope the Minister will give his serious attention before he introduces the Railway Budget. The frist is a matter which has to some extent already been ventilated. I refer to the position of the non-European Railway workers and in that connection I want to say that I feel the House is entitled to much more information as to what is being done on behalf of these non-European Railway men than we have at present. The fact is that out of a total Railway service of something like 121,000 we have 50,000 non-European Railway men all of whom have repeatedly been complimented and praised by various Ministers in regard to their ability and their loyalty. Yet we have the position that the Minister himself comes along after all these years of Union and has to tell this House that the condition of the non-European workers is deplorable. In those circumstances I think this House is entitled to know what is being done in order to alleviate that deplorable condition of the non-European workers. I agree with the Minister that a Departmental Report or an investigation by an Enquiry Committee for the information of a Government Department should not be published, but I think the least this House is entitled to is to know what the recommendationss actually were in connection with the non-European workers, and secondly, what the benefits conferred on these workers are, as a result of the recommendations of the Committee, and how those benefits compare with the recommendations made. We want to know how much better they are off as compared with their position before the issue of a report. I feel that the Minister although very sympathetic, is not a sentimentalist. He is a man of business and yet he has told us that he is not tired in well doing. That is very cheerful news, but I would urge the Minister that in addition to not being tired in well doing he should also adopt the policy of not being slow or niggardly in well doing, so as to improve the lot of these men who are rendering good service to the State. Now I want to touch briefly on another matter which on the face of it may not seem so important, but which affects a large number of people. The Minister’s attention has been drawn to the fact that very large sums of money, I think in the neighbourhood of £90 each, are charged to the British Government for landing aeroplanes in the Union. However little it is, it is a very considerable amount for the service. What this House is entitled to know is, what is the actual cost of doing that work and what profit is made? The Minister took pride in the statement that we were treating the British Government on the same basis as any other Government. Surely that is not enough under present conditions? These aeroplanes are brought into this country for the purpose of helping in the war effort, and surely the Minister on consideration would be the last to suggest that we should treat the British Government on the same basis as for instance the Spanish, the Bulgarian or the Rumanian Government. Surely that is not the position. Having regard to the fact that they are our Allies in the life and death struggle upon which the future of the Union depends, surely a little more consideration should be extended to the British Government and we should adopt the principle that we are not going to profiteer, we are not going to make any profit out of these things. The Minister apparently in order to defend the position said “We are charging the same to the South African Air Force for similar services”. That raises an important principle, and that is whether it is right for one department of State to charge another department of State for services on a basis of making profit. I do not say theye are making profits, but we want to know what the actual costs are. The point is that Government Departments should not make profits out of each other, but that they should work in the common interest of South Africa. The third point upon which I want to touch—and here I am afraid I shall be striking a discordant note in the midst of the chorus of approval from the Opposition—is the question of the Ossewa Brandwag and the position of the Railway men. We have the statement of Dr. van Rensburg, the head of that organisation, who told us that of the membership of the Ossewa Brandwag a large portion comes from the Railway service. That being the case surely the Minister should take a more serious view of the position than he appears to have done so far. The Minister says he does not know what that organisation is. Surely he could find out from the Minister of the Interior, from the Minister of Commerce and Industries, and from the Minister of Justice, who has not only spoken about the matter but who has issued instructions that members of the police force are not allowed to be members of the Ossewa Brandwag. Surely he could find out from them what the position is and it is no use his coming here and saying that he knows nothing about the organisation. He also tells us that in the Railway service there are no subversive activities. I think he should not be unduly optimistic.

What you are really hoping is that he is wrong.

What you are hoping is that Hitler wins the war. I hope the Minister is not unduly optimistic. At any rate I accept that position. I believe that to a great extent his statement is correct, that at present there is no really subversive acivity in the Railway service, but when we remember that the Opposition which is so prone to praise the Minister on his attitude in connection with the matter has practically declared that they are longing for the day when Hitler wins the war, and that a member has publicly declared that “When you hear the tramp of German feet on the soil of England, then we shall have a Republic here”, we must realise that the position is not quite so satisfactory, especially when we hear that the head of the Ossewa Brandwag (Dr. Van Rensburg) declares that he stands against democracy.

Why not?

They are definitely opposed to the war effort in South Africa, and in those circumstances I ask whether it is safe to have in the Railway Service men who even under present conditions are if not actively at least passively subversive? Is it safe to have in the service people who owe allegiance to another organisation which is hostile to the Government’s war efforts, and which is anxious to see that the enemy country shall win in the present life and death struggle in which we are engaged? I can understand that there is no active subversiveness in the Railway Service because these people want to arrange things in such a way that they have men in the various services who can take over control when the tramp of German soldiers’ feet is heard on Britain’s soil. So they have to be careful that no one shall know what they are doing. The Minister should make his enquiries from other Ministers and I believe that if he does so he will not be as optimistic and as confident, and as satisfied as he appears to be now. That is the position which I want to draw the Minister’s attention to. He says he cannot find signs of subversive activity. May I quote a phrase from Matthew 7 v. 7 which was also quoted recently by Mr. Churchill “Seek and ye shall find.” We want to know to what extent the Minister is seeking to find out what the position is, and having sought I venture to think he will find that the position is not as satisfactory as he considers it to be. He says he sees no reason why members of the Railway Service should not belong to the Ossewa-Brandwag. I submit that when one realises that that organisation publicly announces that it stands for a different form of Government, that it stands for a dictatorship, that it is opposed to the war effort to bring to a successful issue this struggle in which we are engaged,—when we realise that the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) is going about the country telling people that the Ossewa-Brandwag will be the storm troopers of the Opposition—when we realise all these things, I ask how one can possibly take up a complacent attitude towards the fact that there are large numbers of members of that organisation in the Railway Service. May I conclude by quoting a statement which appeared a few days ago in the “Sunday Express”. It was a statement by someone who is a loyal supporter of the Government. I refer to Mr. Dawson, Editor of the “Sunday Express”. He said this—

I agree with that, and I want to commend it to the Minister of Railways.

The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is deeply disappointed because the Minister of Railways, unlike his colleagues, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of the Interior, did not attack the Ossewa-Brandwag. The Minister of Railways has perhaps more members of the Ossewa-Brandwag in his department than all the other departments together, and he stated in this House that those people were rendering loyal service to the Railways, and that he had no complaints whatsoever in regard to the faithfulness and loyal service rendered by those people. Now the hon. member for Troyeville wants to send him to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of the Interior to learn from them what the Ossewa-Brandwag is. No, the Minister of Railways is better informed. The hon. member should accept the statement of the Minister of Railways, because if there is one man who has the right to talk about the activities of the Ossewa-Brandwag it is the Minister of Railways. In comparison with other departments, he has most members of the Ossewa-Brandwag in his department, and he stated in this House that those people were rendering loyal and good services to the State. The hon. member should accept his word, and he should not have made another attack on the Ossewa-Brandwag here. The hon. member furthermore put up a plea and asked that the Railways should not try to make profits out of the aeroplanes brought here from England. That side of the House, for all the years I have been sitting here, has been making continuous attacks on the white labour policy of the Railways, because, so they argue, the Railways must be run on business principles, and that being so the white labourers should be replaced by non-Europeans, as the non-Europeans are cheaper.

That is not so.

I can quote speech after speech since Mr. Jagger’s days to prove what I am saying here, to prove that they have always been opposed to the white labour policy because they did not regard it as good business. To-day he comes here and he pleads that we should not make profits on the aeroplanes brought here from England because the Railways have to be run on business lines. That shows the mentality of those people towards South Africa. They come here and plead for non-European labourers to be employed on the Railways, and they urge that the conditions of the nonEuropean labourer should be improved. Well, I have no objection to that, but I have not heard a single word in the hon. member’s speech about the conditions of the white labourers on the Railway.

That is not so.

The condition of the white labourers is just as precarious and as bad as the condition of the non-European labourers, but in spite of that the hon. member does not say a word about the white labourers.

I have pleaded their cause every session.

That shows the mentality of hon. members opposite towards the white race in South Africa, towards the white labourers, and towards the less privileged class of persons in South Africa. The hon. member further quoted certain words which he alleged were used by the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan). He confused the whole issue. He stated here that the Leader of the Opposition had said that when the tramp of German soldiers was heard in England we would get a republic in South Africa. That is absolutely untrue. The Leader of the Opposition quoted what Olive Schreiner had said. That is something entirely different. It is all recorded in Hansard, but the hon. member did not take the trouble to look it up, and he comes here and makes an untrue statement.

The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) said it.

Now the hon. member is getting even more muddled. The hon. member should study the history of this matter, then he would know what the position is, and he would not come here and make an untrue statement like that.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) that he should not come and quote Bible texts here. Above all things, he quoted a text from the New Testament, and there is a text in the New Testament as a matter of fact to the effect that the devil himself also quoted texts. The position is simple— and I can congratulate the Minister of Railways and Harbours on the fact that he has not lost his balance. All the Ossewa-Brandwag is trying to do is to teach the Afrikaner to be loyal to his own country and his own people, and I want to tell the Minister that a man who is not faithful to his own country and his own people will not be loyal to himself. For that reason, I feel that I can congratulate the Minister on the fact that he has not lost his balance. The Afrikaner is being criticised and attacked because he organises, and that is the reason why he was attacked by the hon. member who did so a little earlier. Now I should like to know from the hon. member; who in this country is better organised than the Jews are? They have their Board of Deputies.

But they are not subversive.

They are subversive in every country.

Yes, if the Afrikaner is true to himself and if he organises he is accused of being subversive, but if they— the Jews—organise, then it is not subversive. That is the position we have at last got to; because the Afrikaners feel that they must organise so as to teach their people what discipline is, and to stand together and help each other, just as I take it the Jews organise to stand together, it is called a subversive organisation. I have no objection to their organising if they want to organise to get Palestine back. I shall have no objection, but what right have they to protest if we organise in order to try and keep our own country for ourselves? Apart from that, and the Prime Minister knows it, the more we try to oppress and trample on those people the more we make martyrs of them, the more trouble we lay up for ourselves, and the more we drive them together. If hon. members opposite want to carry on with that sort of policy, by all means let them do so, but they themselves will gather the consequences in days to come. I have repeatedly warned them that they should stop calling us Nazis, that they should stop calling us names. We are in favour of a Republic; they know it; it is a political question and we do not object to their saying that we are in favour of a Republic, nor do we object to their saying that they want to be closer to the British Empire. That is their policy; they have their followers and that is the attitude they adopt. What I feel is this: any attempt made to organise the Afrikaner is always treated with contempt and is always looked upon with suspicion. New regulations have now been issued in order to destroy and wipe out the organisations of the Afrikaner. The Ossewa-Brandwag has lately been proving that it is able to maintain order. I am not entitled to speak about the statements which have been submitted to the Commission but we can see what is going on; let them produce evidence to show that the Ossewa-Brandwag has on any occasion tried to do the things which are being done by the soldiers. Let them prove that the Ossewa-Brandwag as such has ever been organised for these things in the way those people organise themselves. The position simply is that an end must be put to those occusations and to the persecution which is going on. Why is the Afrikaner always to be humiliated? You cannot keep him down. The more you trample on him the more he stands up for himself. I only want to say this to the Prime Minister. He has ample knowledge of these matters; he is older than I am, and older than most members of this House, and he has had more experience than we have had. He knows his history and he knows that the course which is now being pursued by members opposite will eventually lead to trouble. For that reason I feel that the less members opposite talk about these things the better, and I shall leave it at that. During the last session I spoke about the bus drivers. I do not want to go into this question ad nauseum again, I do not want to talk about the long hours those people have to work, but the Minister knows, and I know, that they have no fixed hours and that they sometimes have to work 14 and 15 hours at a stretch and they do not get a penny overtime. While other transport riders are compelled to adhere to fixed hours the people in the service of the Railways are compelled to work hours which are far too long, and they are compelled to work so long that their physical endurance cannot stand it. I should like to know from the Minister whether any effort has been made in the direction of curtailing the hours of these people, so that their working time may be reasonably reduced, and I should like to know what steps have been taken to reward those people for overtime. I should like to know from the Minister whether anything has been done in that respect, and I say again that it is unfair that those people should have to work 14 and 15 hours per day. It is asking too much of them. They have to do all the work. In many cases they have to do the loading up and the offloading of their buses. They have to drive their motors, they have to do the repair work, they have to sell tickets and they have to do all the work that the clerks would have to do. They themselves have to do the work which ordinarily half a dozen people working on the trains would be called upon to do. They must have the skill to repair their motor cars and to keep them in order, and bearing in mind everything they are expected to do I think they are entitled to some concession or compensation. Then I want to ask some further information from the Minister, and that is whether some arrangement cannot be made to keep the Railway coaches which are used between Worcester and Port Elizabeth in a decent condition. One cannot enter the lavatories on the trains—one feels, as a decent man, that one cannot go and wash one’s hands there. If those places cannot be kept clean as they should be, let them at least be painted so that they will look clean, but I feel that it is not impossible to keep those places clean. Sometimes they are completely under water. Are there no people to look after them? I definitely feel that something should be done, and if they cannot be kept clean rather take them away altogether, because if they are left in the condition in which they are to-day they will only lead to the spread of disease. I am making a serious appeal to the Minister to give his attention to this matter.

I am encouraged by the eloquence of my colleague, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) to add very shortly a few words to his plea for better conditions at Port Elizabeth station. It is not my habit, as the House knows, to air matters which may be considered purely parochial before this Assembly, but we in Port Elizabeth do not regard Port Elizabeth’s welfare as a parochial matter, we regard it as a matter of the greatest importance, and indeed a matter of national importance. The conditions at Port Elizabeth station are frankly deplorable. Portions of the buildings are defintely unsafe, and might fall down at any moment; as a matter of fact a great part of these buildings would be condemned by any authority. As you can well imagine, we should be delighted to see the Minister of Railways at Port Elizabeth, but frankly we hesitate to invite him to come there because the weight of his presence might prove the equivalent of the last straw that breaks the camel’s back, and he might, like Samson, disappear underneath the debris of the station edifice. It is very important that this matter should be tackled. The whole east side of Strand Street is held by various people on lease from the railways. Those leases, if I remember rightly, fall in somewhere about 1942, and one end I think in 1943. The whole future of that street, the whole future of these people occupying these premises is very defintely bound up with the question of what is to be done with regard to the station. I know that a sum of £100,000 was placed on the estimates some years back for this matter, but since that time nothing has been done. We are always reasonable people in Port Elizabeth, and we realise that under war conditions there must be delay of various sorts, but I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister the urgency of the position and ask him to come to a definite decision as to where the station is to be, how it is to be constructed and when the necessary action will be taken.

I should also like to bring a few matters to the notice of the Minister as he did not deal with them in his reply to the debate on the second reading. But before coming to those points I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) said here in regard to the attack made by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) on the Ossewa-Brandwag. I think if the hon. member ever did a thing which should not have been done, from a political point of view, or from the point of view of the welfare of South Africa, then it is that he, who belongs to various organisations of his co-religionists, should have made an attack on a movement like the Ossewa-Brandwag. I think you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to say that one of the best reasons why one should be a member of the Ossewa-Brandwag is the very fact that those friends opposite whom we regard as a menace to South Africa are making their onslaughts on this movement. I sincerely wish to thank the Minister for the fact that he in any case has realised that the Ossewa-Brandwag is something which tends to benefit South Africa. I notice in one of the local papers to-day that a sort of insinuation is attributed to the Minister which I think the Minister should contradict. It is stated that he had declared that he had a long list of names of people working on the Railways and belonging to the Ossewa-Brandwag. The paper tries to insinuate by that that what the Minister meant was that he had to keep his eye on people belonging to the Ossewa-Brandwag. I want to ask the Minister what he had in mind when he said that he had such a list of people belonging to the Ossewa-Brandwag. If by that he only meant that he knew of certain members of the Ossewa-Brandwag working on the Railways, then we can leave it at that, but the insinuation is that the Minister has his suspicions that there is something wrong with people who are members of the Ossewa-Brandwag. The hon. member for Troyeville should rather pay a little attention to what is actually taking place on the Railways and to the way in which Afrikaners have to put up with insults from people who are not Afrikaans-speaking, and who do not hold the same political views as are held by hon. members opposite. The standing Rules and Order of this House do not allow me to mention any names in this connection and as a matter of fact I am not anxious to do so, but I have on previous occasions given information to the Minister that there are officials who give expression to, and make comments on Afrikaans-speaking people at the Cape Town station which are most highly offensive. I have told the Minister that there are inspectors there who grossly insult the Afrikaans-speaking people because they are not in favour of the war. Let the hon. member rather see to it that this cause of offence is removed; he comes here and he puts up a plea for the coloured people. Rather let him see to it that this injustice to the Afrikaans-speaking section is removed. If he were to do that we might perhaps be able to get closer to each other. But he gets up here and he does not attack those people, but he attacks those who happen to be members of the Ossewa-Brandwag. I believe that the Minister is trying to be just and fair towards every section employed in the Railway service, but at the large stations especially there are English-speaking people who consistently insult and oppress the Afrikaans-speaking people. If the Minister is prepared to go into this matter I shall give him the names; I am not allowed to do so here. The Afrikaans-speaking people are not receivingfair treatment from the English-speaking section of the South African Railways. The hon. member for Troyeville also complained of the bad treatment meted out to coloured workers in the Railway service. I told the Minister of eight Afrikaans-speaking people who had been dismissed on the Railways at Mossel Bay.

Why were you not here when I answered?

If the Minister replied to my complaint when I happened to be absent for a moment, I am sorry. I asked other members whether the Minister had answered the point raised by me and they told me that he had not done so. I do not know what the answer was which the Minister gave, but if he can come to our assistance to get these eight Afrikaans-speaking people re-employed we shall be grateful to him. Then there is another point which I would also like to mention. The papers referred to something which I was supposed to have said on the second reading. I only want to repeat what I actually did say in that regard, as the Minister’s answer was quite unsatisfactory. I asked the Minister, in view of the attacks which had taken place and the disorders which had occurred on the trains, whether it was not possible, if necessary, to set aside for soldiers a first class carriage at the back of the goods van. The papers thereupon published that I had said that the soldiers should be carried in trucks at the back of the train. I even said that they might use first class coaches, but my intention was that the soldiers should be segregated from the other passengers. My idea was to protect the travelling public from the inconvenience and the insults which they are being subjected to, in spite of what the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) said. I again want to ask the Minister to consider this. The Minister replied that when a crowd of school children travelled by train the same sort of thing took place. It may be that things of that kind do happen, but the school children only travel two or three times per year on the trains, and to-day we are getting soldiers on the trains every day. During the past week we again noticed in the Press that uncalled for and unsolicited assaults were committed on Afrikaans-speaking people. The Minister tries to create the impression that these are only trivial affairs, that when these attacks are made they are very insignificant. Alongside of me there is an hon. member who a short while ago arrived from the North, and he was also compelled to keep his door locked because the soldiers wanted to attack him, although he had not given them the slightest cause for offence in any way whatsoever. The fact that one is an Afrikaner, a good Afrikaner, a Nationalist, is sufficient reason for those people to attack one. One is attaked simply because one does not agree with the Government’s war policy. What would the Minister say if English-speaking people were treated like that? It is the duty of the Minister and of the Government in general to maintain law and order, and I must say that we expect a great deal more from the Minister of Railways, who is English-speaking, than from some of his colleagues in the Cabinet who are men of our own blood. I am sorry that I have to say this. We consider that the Minister of Railways is more fair-minded than some of the people of our own blood who are in the Cabinet. The Minister may unconsciously have created the impression that to his mind the kind of assaults on Afrikaners on the trains are of minor importance, and that one has to expect that sort of thing to happen. The trouble on the trains particularly arises when the soldiers get drink. There is no doubt about that. I travel a lot by train and I have often seen trouble arise when people drink on the trains. The later at night it gets the more they drink, and the more noise and the more trouble they cause. It may perhaps be said that other people also drink. That is no answer to the argument. The fact is that when those soldiers start getting under the infuence of drink they go off and make all sorts of charges to the effect that one belongs to the Fifth Column or to the Ossewa-Brandwag, or they use language which I cannot repeat here, against Afrikaans-speaking people. I again want to ask the Minister to prohibit liquor being supplied to soldiers on the trains. There are hon. members opposite who perhaps feel a great deal more strongly about the consumption of liquor than I do. They want to reduce the use of liquor because they are of opinion that it has a bad effect on the public. Here we are not concerned merely with the evil results so far as the people who drink are concerned, but we are concerned here with misconduct, with fighting and assaults which result from the use of liquor, and I want to ask the Minister to prohibit liquor being supplied to soldiers. I again want to ask the Minister to keep an eye on the Afrikaans-speaking people in the Railway service who in many cases are being unjustly treated and oppressed without the Minister knowing anything about it. The Afrikaans-speaking section of the population is not enjoying a good time in Cape Town nowadays, and the people who work at the station, where one often comes across soldiers, have a very hard time. People who do not agree with the war policy of the Government are interfered with and terrorised, and I want to remind the Minister that those people have only one fatherland—their home is in South Africa. If they differ from the Minister, they are just as convinced of the fact that they are doing the best for their country as the Minister is convinced that he is doing the best for the country. I want to ask the Minister not to deprive these people of their livelihood when they are acting honestly and in accordance with their convictions. I make a special appeal to the Minister.

I waited for the Minister to comment on my previous remarks, when he replied to the debate. I discussed the question of administration merely with the intention of assisting the Minister in running this great business enterprise on business lines. I am pleased that the Minister has set himself the object of rendering service and that, unlike other departments, he does not tarnish himself with the war object. On previous occasions I have drawn attention to the great importance of our Railways. Everything in this country depends upon the way in which our goods are carried over the Railways, and I was very pleased to hear from the Minister that he was not bothering his head with all kinds of talk that came to his notice, that he did not bother himself with the question as to whether Railway workers belonged to the Ossewa-Brandwag or not, and quite right too. So long as they do their duty, the Minister can have no objection to their belonging to the Ossewa-Brandwag. I was sorry, however, to hear from the Minister that in his opinion the Ossewa-Brandwag was of so little importance, so insignificant, because they wanted to go back to the oxwagon instead of to the railways. He was only making a joke; just as little as I can do without certain people in my business, just as little can the Minister in his concern do without good workers, and he must prevent pressure being brought to bear on people to develop the war psychology, and prevent people taking up the attitude that anyone who is against the war shall be victimised. I am against the war, and I voted against South Africa taking part in the war, but there are a great many people in the Railway Service who depend upon the work they do there and who are opposed to the war. So long as they do their duty, they should not be victimised. Victimisation and intimidation are, however, indulged in by those who are in key positions. They are not doing their share in the war, but they are in key positions, and the people who refuse to wear the red tab are being victimised. They are put back and they do not get the promotion to which they are entitled. Promotion is reserved for those who wear the red tab and for those who occupy key positions. I want to bring this very strongly to the Minister’s notice. We can demand that a person shall do his duty and do what he is supposed to do, but we must not humiliate such a person and destroy his soul. I shall come back later on to these general points. A few members, however, have raised certain matters which are of great importance to their constituencies, and I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that Bethlehem is in a key position so far as distribution in the North-Eastern Free State is concerned, because the major portion of the distribution, trade and commerce, and industry in the Free State pass through that centre. Geographically, we are the distributing centre, and great developments are taking place there, and there are great potentialities for expansion there. That part, the North-Eastern Free State, is a most important part of the Free State in consequence of our geographical position, climate and other conditions. Bethlehem is in a key position, and particularly so far as water is concerned the town is situated most favourably. If other parts of the country meet with a lot of trouble, Bethlehem will always be able to supply water to the Railways. That is not due to anything the Railways have done, but it is due to the ratepayers of Bethlehem. They have incurred great expense, and they have made the necessary provision, realising that if expansion is to take place in days to come it has to come through Bethlehem. Unfortunately, Bethlehem has now become a bottle-neck of the Railways, which of necessity interferes with good transportation, and which is also wrong from the point of view of defence. It is a bottle-neck which is very troublesome. The Railway Administration has for a long time realised that changes have to be made, that the old station building has to be replaced, and that the whole position has to be taken into review. Money has already been voted for the purpose, but none the less the position has not been changed. It is now being argued that capital investments have to be restricted on account of existing conditions. May I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that this expansion is highly essential for the sake of proper transportation in South Africa, and that it is in the interest of his department to have immediate provision made for an improvement in the position, in spite of all the war expenditure we have at present.

I would be failing in my duty if I did not also raise my voice in regard to the impertinent remarks of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I only want to say this to the hon. member, that if the Jews who live in this country carry on in that way, the people of South Africa will not tolerate it any longer. We have been defied quite sufficiently, and we are not going to stand for it any longer. So far as I am concerned, I can tell the Minister that we are grateful to him for what he has said as to his attitude towards the Ossewa-Brandwag. We know that he means it honestly, and I can give him the assurance that the Afrikaans-speaking section of the Railway staff who are members of the Ossewa-Brandwag will loyally support him, and that all those rumours of subversive movements are unfounded; but we are tired of those kinds of insults by Jewish representatives, and the sooner they leave it alone the better for them. We have never yet said anything against Jewish organisations. They and their Jewish Board of Deputies, which stands for the interest of the Jews. We know the way in which they act from time to time, but I want to say this, that if they carry on with their propaganda against the Opposition on this side, we shall start propaganda against the Jewish Board of Deputies to show them that we are not going to put up with it. The Minister told me that I must continue to plead for cheaper fares I can assure him that I am going to do so. I am going to continue to agitate for cheaper rates for the farming population. I can also tell him that we feel very strongly on this point, and that we feel that something must be done for the benefit of those who are less privileged than others. The Minister has given us to understand that he is advised by the Department of Agriculture so far as the rates on farming products are concerned. I want to tell him that he must allow himself to be led by them in every respect if the Railways are to be run on business principles. We expect that when tariffs are being considered in accordance with business principles, and there is a section which is being detrimentally affected, consideration will be given to their position. If the Minister, in view of the competition of motor transport, fails to bring down his fares, and fails to be reasonable, the Railways will lose a lot of business. A certain amount has been placed on the Estimates which has been specially put there by the Treasury—and I take it that it will appear on the Estimates again this year, because the Minister has already told us that the amount asked for in the Part Appropriation Bill is based on the previous year’s services, and I therefore take it that this amount will again appear on the Estimates—as I have said, a certain amount has been placed on the Estimates by the Treasury for the reduction of rates; in other words, for the purpose of assisting the farmers in regard to rates. Last year that amount was £40,000, and the year before it was also £40,000. As that amount is specially intended by the Treasury for a reduction of rates, I should like to know from the Minister of Railways whether the Railways cannot also put aside a special amount for that purpose. What I have in mind by that is this. The Minister of Railways uses that special amount which is placed on the Estimates by the Treasury to reduce certain Railway rates, and I should now like the Railway Administration, like the Treasury, to set aside a special amount so that the rates may be even further reduced. The Railways already have a large reserve fund. I believe the Railway Department has a reserve fund of about £3,000,000. Seeing that the amount is so large, I feel that the Minister will not take it amiss from me if I remind him of the fact that that money comes out of the pockets of the people who have to pay the Railway rates. The farmers are suffering in consequence of the high rates; it is money which comes out of their pockets, and now that we are experiencing very hard times—although certain members say that the farmers are flourishing—I can assure the Minister that the farmer at the moment is making a very poor living, and that the time has now arrived when the Minister should use this reserve fund in the way I have suggested. That reserve fund was specially collected during better times with a view to protecting rates in times of depression, and I want to suggest to the Minister that now is the time for part of that fund to be used, just as the Treasury has put aside a certain amount of money for a reduction of Railway rates; in other words, to bring down rates and to pay in that amount to make up so-called losses. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration. It is absolutely essential that something should be done in that regard. The farming population feel very strongly on this point, and they are suffering as a result of those high rates, and because they are suffering, and because we have a Minister who is a business man, he will be able to realise that it is not only in the interest of the farmer, but also in the interest of the Railways themselves that rates should be reduced, and, as I have already said, Railway fares should also be reduced, so that the competition which exists on the part of motor transportation will disappear, with the result that the Railways will improve their position. Then I also wish to bring to the Minister’s special notice that the Railway coaches between De Aar, Upington and Prieska, especially when the mail train does not run, are in a very bad state. I can assure him that when we take out first class tickets—and he can accept this from me as being the truth—we have to travel in second class compartments, because there are no first class coaches. They are second class compartments which are marked first class. We pay for first class tickets, but we travel in second class compartments. I hope the Minister will give this matter his attention. Then there is another matter which perhaps is of minor importance to the people living in the towns and who travel by trains, but it is of the greatest importance to people living in the platteland who have to get on to the train at stations along the main line. If one takes a bed on the train and one has not taken a ticket at the station, one has to pay an additional sixpence. It means 6d. on 3s., so that one is fined nearly 20 per cent. I do not think that is right. I have had the experience of getting to a station on the main line to Johannesburg, the only person on the station is a foreman, and when one arrives there at about the time when the train is coming in one finds the station closed. I can understand the reason for the station being closed, but it means that the passenger is unable to get a ticket, and he is then forced by circumstances to pay more than the ordinary citizen is called upon to pay. I am not suggesting that additional staff should be appointed at the various stations, but I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the difficulties with which the travelling public of the platteland have to contend with. I want to express the hope that the Minister will give his attention to these few matters which I have raised here this afternoon. I can assure him that the grievances and the complaints I have mentioned are well founded so far as the people of the platteland are concerned. And surely we should not discriminate between the people of the platteland and the people who live in the large towns, and who already have greater facilities and conveniences than the other people who live far away from the Railways.

Unfortunately I was not present during the second reading debate on this Bill and there are a few matters which I would again like to bring to the notice of the Minister. A few years ago— the year before last, as a matter of fact— a few thousand pounds were placed on the Estimates for extensions to the railway station at Worcester, and for the building of offices, and I should like to know from the Minister what the actual position is. I want to know when those offices will be finished, and when the Railway officials will have the benefit of better housing than they have had during the last few years. During the past few years I have also been making representations to the Railway Administration for improvements to be effected to two very poor stations, namely, that at Breede River and that at Sandhills in my constituency. I do not think there are along the whole of our railway system any stations doing more work and in as poor a condition as those two stations. The Railways have been earning good revenue during the last few years and I should like that good revenue to be used to improve those stations. Those stations are not merely a disgrace to the Railway Administration, but they are definitely detrimental. At Sandhills there is a corrugated iron building which is very stuffy and small, and apart from that it is a disgrace to the Railways to have station buildings like that. In addition to which it is injurious to the health of the Railway officers who have to do their work there. I am sorry for the people at Sandhills and also at Breede River. I also want to ask whether it is not possible for the Railway Administration to provide for more housing for the labourers and poorly paid officials at Worcester. Those people find it very difficult to make a living at Worcester on account of house rents being so very high. In October last year somebody said to me here: “What is the Municipality doing?” The Municipality builds houses for the civilian population and it cannot build for the Railway people as well. I am very anxious that the Administration should give its attention to this matter. I also want to express my satisfaction at the fact that we have a Minister now who has common sense and who allows his common sense to triumph over the personal feelings which he may perhaps have. We have a few Ministers who during the course of this last year have been particularly noisy in regard to the Ossewa-Brandwag, who have made all kinds of statements and who have tried to make mischief on the platteland and also in the departments under their charge, in their efforts to induce people to intimidate others if they were members of the Ossewa-Brandwag. It has been very clearly stated, and one really deplores the small-minded attitude of those Ministers in regard to that question. Sometimes it seems to me that the position will even become dangerous for them, In regard to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), well, one does not expect anything else from imported things like that. We find that those imported people come to our country and after having been here a few years they get up and pose as better Afrikaners than all the others, better than the true Afrikaners, and then they want to dictate to the old settled population what they should and should not do. The old settled population has to be oppressed by foreigners who have come here, by fortune seekers, and by people who were unable to make a living in their own country. It is not enough for them that they are living on the fat of the land but they do their best to insult the people of this country. One must expect it from them. But people I do not expect it from are people who were born in South Africa and who have grown up here. But they have got so far away from their own people, from their own customs and traditions, that they are now exactly like the imported people and they want to show how loyal they are. That type of loyal person is almost worse than the imported lot. I only want to say this, that the Minister must persist with the sound influence he is undoubtedly exercising in the Cabinet. I hope he will have success with the attitude he has adopted, and he deserves to be honoured by the Afrikaner people for the manly attitude he has adopted.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) has been attacked a great deal in the past, especially by hon. members opposite, on account of his having made a proposal here which they and also their papers have interpreted in a distorted form.

In connection with what was that?

It was in connection with the incidents which have occurred on the trains with soldiers. I do not intend to go into that matter, but I want to testify here that when about a month or so ago I travelled by train to Pretoria and when I returned from Pretoria in the company, among others, of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen), and a member of the Provincial Council for that same constituency, we were in the Railway dining saloon and we were unable to talk to each other because of the singing and the noise made by the soldiers in that dining saloon. Why are hon. members opposite so very much surprised then if a suggestion is made, such as that which was made by the hon. member for Mossel Bay? If they are surprised at a suggestion like that they are either unfamiliar with the conditions created by soldiers, or otherwise they are dishonest and they are blind to those facts. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) puts up a plea here on behalf of the coloured labourers on the Railways, and he asked the Minister to have an investigation made as soon as possible into the condition of those people, into their living conditions, because he contended that the pay they receive for their services was too small. I shall leave that point there. It is quite possible that there are cases of that kind, and I am one of those who takes up this attitude, that if a coloured labourer is not being paid a sufficient wage for the services he is rendering, I have no objection to justice being done to him, and to his being paid more. On the other hand, I wish to express my regret that the hon. member for Troyeville did not also see fit to say a few words on behalf of the white labourers who in many cases—I am certain in more cases —are living under similar conditions of hardship. It seems to me that those hon. members are in the position of people whose intellect cannot conceive the fact that if one is a white man one does not only require to be fed and to be clothed, but one also has to keep up a higher status of living than that of the coloured man in South Africa. And for that reason one gives the white man not just enough money to enable him to eat properly and to dress properly, but if one looks at the position in South Africa in a proper light one also has to give him sufficient money to enable him to maintain his status as a white man. In passing I want to refer to what was said by the social woman worker who for years worked among the Railway people between Bellville and Cape Town. She worked among the people who earned less than 10/- per day, and she has told me of more than one incident which simply made my hair stand on end. She came to the conclusion that a large percentage of the white Railway workers had to do one of two things; they and their families either lived decently and ate too little, or otherwise they had enough to eat but lived in poor conditions. It was impossible for them to do both. They could not possibly eat and live as they should do. If that is so then we must admit that the position is intolerable, that we cannot allow that position to continue if we want the white man to maintain the status of a white man. Now I should also like to touch on a matter of local interest. I want to assure the Minister of Railways that the people of Paarl greatly appreciate the fact that he is building a new station at Huguenot, but I want to ask the Minister whether it would not be possible to have the work expedited at bit. I do not say that those people are doing too little work every day, but I speak from experience when I say that the work is progressing very slowly, and I hope the Minister will give his attention to this question and see whether the work cannot be expedited. Finally, I want to thank the Minister of Railways for having at least kept his balance, and for not having done what other Ministers have done, or are inclined to do, and for not giving effect to the appeal made by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), namely to take action against the Ossewa-Brandwag. I speak here as a member of that movement, as an officer in the movement, and if the Minister were to comply with that foolish request of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kendridge) then I would put this request to the Minister, that he should dismiss all Jews from the service who belong to a Jewish movement, and that he should also dismiss all Englishmen who belong to an English movement. We as Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners expect at the very least to be granted the same privileges as the other races in this country, so long as we keep within the limits of decency.

I do not know whether you have ever had a lump in your throat. I really got a lump in my throat during this discussion, and do hon. members know why? It was caused by all this flattery and the saying of “thank you” to the Minister of Railways and Harbours. Why, and what should he be thanked for? Every citizen of the country has his duty to fulfil and if he fulfils his duty why then should we say thank you to him? I do not agree with all this. I am pleased that the Minister is doing his duty. I am not going to flatter the Minister. It has even been said here that he could now be a candidate for the position of Commandant-General of the Ossewa-Brandwag. I do not say so at all. It will be a long time yet before he can be considered for that position. If he does his duty in the Railway Administration and if he continues to follow the path which he has now taken that day may dawn perhaps. That is what I want to say so far as the Minister of Railways is concerned. When I came in the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) was just starting his bitter attack on the police. And afterwards he also made an attack on the civil servants of this country. Does the hon. member know that if he attacks the police and if he attacks the officials he is attacking the whole of the Afrikaner people? Does he realise that? Does he know that he is attacking people who belong to this nation, who belong to the people among whom he came to try and make a living, just in the same way as other people have come here who had run away from their own country, some from the slums of Petrograd and loafers from our own country? The Afrikaner people received those people here, not at the back door where they really should have been received, but at the front door. We gave them rooms to sleep in, we gave them free board and lodging; and what right have those people now to come and attack the Afrikaans police and officials simply because they are doing their duty to the country? The hon. member can also attack me. I am a member of the Ossewa-Brandwag and my son occupies a high position in the Ossewa-Brandwag, and I am proud of the fact. I feel that the day is approaching, and the time is coming near, when we shall tell the Ossewa-Brandwag who are the people traducing them and insulting them? If individuals like him attack the Ossewa-Brandwag and want to tell the country that members of the Ossewa-Brandwag should not be allowed in the Public Service ….

Now you are talking nicely.

I do not like people making attacks with the object of insulting others, but if we get members here who perhaps have run away and have been obliged to run away from their own fatherland, and whose predecessors may perhaps have been walking about among the Afrikaners to get a start in life …. if people like that come and make attacks then it is beyond me. But I shall leave that point. I want him and his people, however—I warn him that we may just as well from our side suggest that all the Jews who are members of Jewish organisations shall not be allowed to become members of Parliament, and I am convinced that if the Party Whips opposite were called off the great majority of members opposite would also vote in favour of such a suggestion. I again wish to bring this to the notice of the Minister of Railways, and I want to express the hope that he will succeed in getting those rail cars from Czechoslovakia. He promised us that we were to get a rail car on the Touws River-Ladismith line. That matter has been disposed of and we are wating for the Minister to carry out his promise. On a previous occasion I also asked for a weighing machine for the Ceres station. I told the Minister that the man who kept on trying must succeed in the end. I told him that he is dealing with a man here who will keep on trying and as long as I am here I shall keep on asking him to give us a weighing machine for Ceres station. He knows that I don’t flatter him, I shall never do it. It is his duty to look after the interests of the country so far as the Railways are concerned, and I know that he will do his duty.

I rejoiced at hearing the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) say that he did not want to make any remarks with the intention of insulting and attacking other people. I am sorry that the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Wolfaard) did not take up the same attitude. He held forth here against certain members and people in the country, and he told us that there were Afrikaners on this side of the House who were worse than those people. Whom was he referring to? He said that they were the people who had strayed from their customs and traditions and that they were almost worse than the imported people whom he so vehemently held forth against. Whom did he mean?

He means the people who in the second war of independence fought against the Boers.

He did not say that, and the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. A. L. Badenhorst) is now trying to make excuses for him. Let him explain to us who the people are that he had in mind? The hon. member for Ceres said that he did not want to attack or insult anybody. But he followed in the footsteps of other members to attack and insult certain people and sections. The hon. member for Worcester said that we were even worse than the people whom the hon. member for Ceres held forth against.

Did you take offence at that?

I want to know whom that hon. member was referring to? Does the hon. member know that there is a very large section of Afrikaner people on this side of the House and that certainly half or more of the Afrikaner people are represented by members on this side of the House? Let hon. members judge by our soldiers; 60 per cent. of our troops are Afrikaans-speaking, and that gives an indication of where the feelings of the Afrikaner people are. I have not got up here with the idea of promoting the interests of a particular section, but I want to say this: the hon. member said that certain members of the Jewish community should be put out of the country if the Ossewa-Brandwag is to be put out of action. We say that if it can be proved that any individual, whether he is a member of a Jewish society or of an English society, is engaged on a subversive movement which is aimed against the interests of the State, he should be put out of the country, just the same as any other person. But until such time as that stage is reached we certainly have not got the right to take such steps against them. The hon. member for Ceres, inter alia, said that he failed to understand why members on his side of the House should be so grateful to the Minister. It reminds me of an instance which we had on the occasion of the oxwagon trek. A certain society was to have had some games in my part of the country, but they cancelled their games because the ox-wagon trek was to pass through and because a service was to be held. Some time afterwards, when it was suggested that a letter of thanks should be sent them by the secretary, certain members objected and said that that society had done no more than its duty. The predikant who was chairman of the committee replied: “It seems strange to me that you should adopt that attitude. I pay my servant every month, but when he brings me a cup of coffee in the morning I say thank you. It is no more than Christian to do so,” and what attitude are hon. members now adopting. It does not humiliate anyone to say thank you if somebody does him a good turn. I now want to ask the Minister something. Our young Afrikaners go into the Railway service and they have an opportunity of being trained there, and I want to ask the Minister to develop that branch of work as far as he possibly can and to provide more and more opportunities for those young men. It is in that direction that the Afrikaner people will be able to go ahead and fit themselves more and more to occupy prominent positions on our Railways.

I do not think it is necessary for me to take any notice of the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe). If an Afrikaans-speaking member sinks so low that he wants to pose here as a champion of the Jews then there is no need whatsoever for us to take notice of him, just as it is not necessary for us to take notice of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I received a letter this morning from a constituent of mine who had sent his daughter to a school at Paarl, the La Rochelle School. She travelled by train and she was assaulted by soldiers. The parents have written to me asking to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister of Railways and also to the Prime Minister, and to see whether a plan cannot be devised to ensure that girls can feel safe on the trains. Here is the letter which I have received from Mr. van den Heever of Venterstad. I want to read a few extracts for the information of the Minister. This is what the daughter writes to her father. It was the first time she had travelled by train, and she was on her way to the La Rochelle School at Paarl:

I am not speaking of grown-up people but of children from the platteland who are sent to school. Nothing dangerous occurred here, but does the Minister know that people at Burghersdorp are hiring others to take their daughters to the schools in the towns? They hire motors to have their daughters taken over long distances because they are nervous of that sort of thing happening. I do not want to go into it any further, but I want to tell the Minister that the trains to-day are no longer safe for grown-ups. Unfortunately the Minister, and also the Minister for Finance who sits next to him, are not married. If he had a daughter he would realise better what the position is.

He is married.

I beg your pardon. I hope the Minister will give his attention to this. If people have to go to the extent of hiring motor cars to send their children to school over long distances it surely shows a very sad state of affairs.

I should like to add a few words to those of my colleague in regard to the station at Port Elizabeth. I think the Minister will admit that the station, as it is, is no credit to the Administration. We have patiently waited for a new one, because we have always understood that the only matter which was delaying it was the question of the leases on the properties in Strand Street. Now these leases expire in 1942, and I would like to have an assurance from the Minister that this is the only reason why the building of the new station is delayed. I would also like to have a further assurance that no other interests will be allowed to interfere with the work being proceeded with after the expiration of those leases, and thus delaying something to which we have a just claim. If the work is delayed longer than we consider reasonable, it will cause great dissatisfaction amongst the citizens of Port Elizabeth. I sincerely hope the Minister will be able to assure us that these leases are the only things standing in the way. I believe a few years ago there was an amount of £100,000 on the estimates for the new station. For the last year or two I have failed to find it, and perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us why that amount has been deleted. If he can give us this assurance we will be perfectly satisfied.

There is just one matter I want to mention and that is the very large number of Europeans who are employed on the re-grading scheme of the Eastern Cape Railways. As the Minister is aware, there are between 600 and 700 married Europeans, and they are engaged to-day on casual employment. They are housed in these model villages. The time has now come when this work will be soon completed, and these people, who are mostly farmers, all married men with families, drawn from the land, are anxious to know what provision is being made for them in the future. I have visited these villages and have seen a number of men who are getting on in years, and it will be impossible for them to perform this very hard work in the near future. They are engaged on piece work and have to go all out to earn their 10/- or 12/- per day, and soon the pace will be too hot for many of them. The Railway Department, in conjunction with the Social Welfare Department, will have to do something to place these people. If some steps are not taken in that direction, it simply means that these families are all going to drift to the towns and become a burden on the municipalities, and they will get into an environment which is not suitable to them. These men have approached me, and they are very anxious about the future. Their constant question is wat is the Government going to do for us when we get too old to work so hard? They want to get back to the land and own their own homes once again; and many of them have suggested that if it were possible they would like to get holdings on the Vaal Hartz scheme. Now there is a superintendent at each of these villages, and these men know who are the men who can be relied upon, men who have proved their worth, and I would ask the Minister to keep in the closest possible contact with that welfare officer, and use these villages as clearing stations, and do his utmost to get these men back on the land again. I therefore ask the Minister to co-operate very closely with the Minister of Lands, as well as the Minister of Social Welfare, so as to ensure that these people are not simply driven out of employment into the towns, when they have a real longing to get back to the land. I would like some information from the Minister as to what the department is doing for these people in the model villages. Most of them have had bad luck and been driven off their farms by adverse conditions; now is the chance to give them a helping hand again and rehabilitate them.

Arising out of what the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) has said, I want to make a suggestion. I came down by train last year for the session of Parliament, and this was just at the beginning of a school term. There was a youngster of about nine or ten years on the train who came from Hanover. I can give the Minister all the details, but I need only say that this youngster was put in a compartment in which there were three soldiers. At De Aar those soldiers were fairly drunk and they went and bought a couple of bottles of brandy which they put under the seat in their compartment. Another man who was in the same compartment showed me those bottles, and I saw them with my own eyes. The youngster lost all his food and all the money he had on him— it was stolen, and if he had not been looked after I wonder if he would ever have reached his destination. There we have the case of a youngster of nine or ten years of age going to school at Paarl and he had to travel in the company of soldiers. Now I should like to know whether the Minister could not give instructions to the ticket examiners to have children put together as much as possible in one compartment, and to prevent their having to travel in the same compartment as soldiers. When I was a child I remember that there were special trains which travelled straight through from the Western Province to the Eastern Province, Free State and the Transvaal, in order to carry girls and boys separately, and I should like to know whether it is not possible in view of the abnormal conditions while soldiers are continually travelling up and down, to make similar arrangements. Unfortunately there are people who are unable to control themselves and who drink too much, and I feel that the Minister should take special note of these things at the time when the schools close down or when they open. It may perhaps not be possible to have special trains anywhere but on the main lines, but on the branch lines one does not get so many soldiers on the trains—they mostly travel over the main lines. It would appear that not only the girls have to be protected but the little boys as well, and I hope the Minister will find it possible to make some plan so that in any case the children will not be put into the same compartment as the soldiers, because the results may be very detrimental to the youth of South Africa.

I don’t propose to go over any of the ground that I covered at considerable length in the course of my reply at the first stages of my Part Appropriation. I dealt there extensively with the position of soldiers, and I don’t propose to traverse the same ground again. Protection is provided nowadays on trains, because we have a certain number of military police whose duty it is to see that order is kept on the trains. I am not going to treat soldiers as if they were a set of people apart from others, because our soldiers are good Afrikaners, and I see no reason why one Afrikaner should be separated from another. I am not also going to enter into the controversy which has arisen between the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and hon. members opposite. It has nothing to do with me and as far as I can see, it has nothing to do with my Part Appropriation. With regard to the request by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren), I will look into the last matter that he raised. In regard to bus drivers, we are having a complete investigation into the hours of labour, and all the conditions of service in connection with our bus driving service. Those conditions are not satisfactory, and I have instituted an investigation the result of which, I think, will satisfy the hon. member for Swellendam. With regard to Port Elizabeth, I have to thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) for his kindly reference to myself, but I cannot associate with this expression the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Hirsch). His picture of me being liquidated under my own railway station does not appeal to me, even although I died in a good cause. In regard to the Port Elizabeth railway station, hon. members have themselves explained the position to the House, and I don’t know why they ask me about it. The fact is, we cannot make a move until certain leases fall in. As soon as they do we shall make a move in regard to the station. I admit the station is one that badly needs renewing. I am not going to tie myself down, however, in the way the hon. member would like me. What does he mean when he talks about allowing no other interests to interfere? The only interest that could interfere is that I may not have any money to do it with. I have given him the assurance that when the leases fall in we shall take steps to renew Port Elizabeth station, and I think he must be satisfeid with that. With regard to the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) I will deal with the question of the Ossewa-Brandwag in a little while. I won’t reply again to the request of my pertinacious friend the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys), but I would refer him to my remarks in a previous speech to the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen). In regard to his suggestion that we should appropriate some money for farmers’ relief from our profits, I suppose the hon. member knows that we already appropriate £400,000 to that end. The Central Government gives £800,000 and the Railways £400.000, a total of £1,200,000, and that is entirely for the relief of farmers.

The idea was to bring down tariffs.

That is exactly what it is used for. Then the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Wolfaard) asked about Worcester station. That will cost £11,133 to complete, and £5,808 appears on the estimates for the purpose this year. In regard to housing, I think I have already dealt with that at considerable length. In reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Van Coller), I would like to say that the Railways take considerable pride in the work that has been done in their model villages. Every effort is made when people get too old to work any longer at that kind of job, to see that these people are satisfactorily placed on some kind of work, irrigation and so on, that they are able to do. He can rest assured that that is a matter which is receiving the constant and sympathetic attention of the Administration. I come to the Ossewa-Brandwag, about which a good deal of nonsense has been talked. To begin with, I think it would be just as well if I told the House what I did say, because the hon. member for Troyeville has put words into my mouth which I never uttered. I have here, fresh from Hansard, and unrevised, exactly what I said, and I will read it:

If there are subversive activities, I shall take action with a firmness which will surprise hon. members opposite. Then I went on to say—

That, sir, is due to my sense of humour, which will bubble out at inappropriate moments, getting me into trouble, but I don’t suppose that any member takes a remark of that kind seriously. That is all I said, and if I am to be blamed for a sense of humour, which I admit is a weakness of mine, I can only say that the life of a Minister in this House would be almost impossible if he did not have a sense of humour.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The hon. the Minister of Finance replied yesterday to the debate in connection with the Part Appropriation Bill.

I wish to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that we are in Committee and that he cannot now deal with questions of policy.

Then I should like to put a few questions to the Minister. I should like to ask him what the position is in regard to the aeroplane bases which are being established for the training of part of the R.A.F. We have one of those bases at George, The Minister has given us an assurance that the expense connected with the training will be borne by the British Government. Now I would like to know whether the British Government will bear all the expense in connection with the aeroplane bases?

I do not like to stop the hon. member, but I think the hon. member should wait with that question until the third reading of the Bill is before the House.

Very well, Mr. Chairman, I shall do so.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported the Bill without amendment.

I move—

I object.

Third reading on 24th February.

I have an amendment on the Order Paper which I wish to move, and which is similar to the amendment which I moved when we discussed this Bill in Committee. I hope the Minister during the time between the Committee stage and now has realised how absolutely essential it is to accept this amendment. Let us look at the effect of the provisions now appearing in clause 8. According to those provisions, any individual selling goods which are alleged to have been produced or manufactured in the Union, while in actual fact they have not been so manufactured, is guilty of an offence. What does that mean? It means that not only the small dealer on the platteland, but even a large business in Cape Town which sells those goods bona fide, and which has not the slightest idea that they have been wrongly marked, or that they have been produced outside the Union, can be found guilty. They are quite innocent of having done anything wrong, but as the clause reads now the magistrate has no option but to find such a person guilty of an offence. That is the position. No defence is allowed, and as I read this clause it will amount to this, that an individual found guilty under the provisions of this clause will not have the right, or it will not avail him, to appeal to a higher court. He is guilty in spite of the fact that he has sold goods which he has obtained in all good faith, and despite the fact that he was not aware that those goods contained a wrong description in regard to the place of origin. I do not know how the Minister can get past that point. Clause 7 deals with the same kind of thing, perhaps even in a worse degree, but a special opening is left there to such a person to prove that he has acted in good faith. Clause 7 lays down that anyone selling goods containing a forged trade mark, or a false trade description, or on which a trade mark has been falsely affixed, is guilty of an offence—

1. (i) that he took all reasonable precautions against committing the offence charged; and
2. (ii) that he had at the time of the commission of the alleged offence no reason to suspect the genuineness of the trade mark or trade description; and
3. (iii) that if any demand was made by any inspector, police officer, or officer of Customs, he gave to him all the information available to him with respect to the persons from whom he had obtained the goods.

Here it is exactly the same. In clause 8 we are not concerned with a forged trade mark, but with a person who sells goods in the Union which have not been manufactured or produced in the Union, and on which a mark has been affixed stating that those goods have been manufactured in the Union, while such is not the case. It reads—

Now what is the difference between clause 7 and clause 8? The only difference is that in the one case the falsification is of a somewhat worse degree. Clause 7 deals with the falsification of the trade mark, and clause 8 deals with the question of a wrong description. The principle, however, remains the same. I want to say this, that the clause as it stands here conflicts with all our conceptions of right and justice, because a man is found guilty and he is not even given the opportunity of proving that he has obtained the goods in good faith, and that he did not know that they contained a wrong description. Now what is the reason why the Minister cannot accept this amendment? The Minister says first of all that we must not put any unnecessary things into the Bill. I believe he used the word “overloading.” This is not a question of unnecessarily overloading the Bill. What we are dealing with here is that a man might be forced into difficulties, and even if it were to mean a whole page of amendments to protect such a man we should still protect him. Now I come to the most remarkable part of the Minister’s argument, and that is that surely a magistrate would in such a case not impose a heavy fine. Possibly he may impose a fine of only 5s. It does not matter whether the fine is 5s., £5 or £50. The fact is that the man is found guilty of an offence and it is recorded against his name, and hon. members will agree with me that every decent business man wants to keep his name clean. Even though the fine be small, the fact remains that a man is found guilty, and the final clause of this Bill provides that if a man has two convictions against him he may be very heavily fined, and he may even be sent to prison. It amounts to this, that if a man in all innocence gets into trouble for the second time he is liable to be very heavily punished. I hope the Minister will reconsider this whole matter. It appals one to think that such a provision may be put on our Statute Book, and that is why I move in my amendment that similar protection shall be given in regard to clause 8 as is already provided for under clause 7. If it is necessary in connecttion with clause 7, it is also necessary in connection with clause 8. I am convinced that hon. members opposite who have gone into this matter, especially those who are interested in business, will agree with me, and I hope the Minister will agree to accept this amendment. I move—

1. (i) that he took all reasonable precautions against committing the offence charged;
2. (ii) that he had at the time of the commission of the alleged offence no reason to believe that the goods had been manufactured or produced in the Union; and
3. (iii) that when demand was made by any inspector, police officer or officer of Customs he gave to him all the information with respect to the person or persons from whom he had obtained the goods.”

I second the amendment, and I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and ask him to accept the amendment. The business men opposite would, if he were to consult them, tell him where they are conversant with business on the platteland that it is essential that he should accept this amendment. He will find that the business men in his own Party agree with the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I should like to put the matter from the point of view of the law. As a rule if an individual commits an offence, and that applies to all crimes under Common Law —there must be an intent to commit an offence. There must be mens rea before an individaul can be found guilty of a crime. If anyone steals anything without criminal intent, he is not guilty of an offence. There is the famous case of the man who walked into a shop and said: “I want to go to gaol,” and thereupon took a pair of boots and walked away with them. He was brought into court an on account of his not having had criminal intent he was found not guilty. That applies to crimes under the Common Law. But when we are dealing with an Act passed by Parliament, there need not be such intent. The law simply says that if one does this or that, or neglects to do this or that, one has committed an offence and one is found guilty. That is also the position here. Now I want to ask the Minister this: he knows that some time ago people got into trouble through selling bicycles from Japan. The Japan manufacturer imported the frames of those bicycles from England, and they were marked “made in England.” They made those bicycles in Japan and sent them to South Africa, and consequently the only marking on those bicycles was “made in England.” Those bicycles were sold here and the people who sold them got into trouble. Now I want to put this position to the Minister. Take the case of a shopkeeper on the platteland and even here in town. Assuming he gets such a bicycle—how is he to know that it was made in Japan? That is the only mark on the bicycle. He has bought it in good faith from the wholesaler and if he sells that bike after this Bill comes into force then he is in trouble. It is no use his saying that he did not know that those bicycles did not come from England. There was no criminal intent, but as the Bill now reads there need not be any criminal intent. He is simply guilty of an offence because he has done it. He will be found guilty under this Act, whether he was conscious or not of the fact that he was committing an offence. I further want to make it clear that the dealers on the platteland and even in the large towns are already complaining that there is practically nothing they can do without committing an offence. There are so many laws and so many regulations that they are unconsciously doing something against the law, and then they are guilty of an offence. We are making the position even more difficult here, and if we continue doing this sort of thing every trader, every merchant will afterwards be compelled to have an attorney connected with his business to tell him when he is doing something against the law. If a man conducts his business, honestly, and if he wants to treat the people who deal with him honestly, but if unconsciously he does anything against the law, why then not give him the opportunity of proving before the courts that he has acted innocently, and that he did not know that he was doing anything against the law? I think it is no more than right to make that provision. It makes no difference what the fine is, whether it be big or small, if a man is found guilty it is put against his name. We get honest dealers—there are not so very many of them, but none the less we get honest people among them—we get people who want to be honest, and who want to give the public what they think they are getting. Those people transgress the law without any criminal intent, and without knowing that they are doing so, and then they can be brought before the courts and they have no defence to offer. It is impossible in a business for people to look at everything, and innocent people will be brought to court. Why not give the man whose intentions are honest the opportunity of proving that he has no intention of committing an offence? The onus of proof is on him to prove that he was under the impression that he was acting honestly and straightforwardly. The wholesale traders themselves may perhaps not know where the goods have been manufactured. The Minister knows as well as I do that these goods are imported from various countries, although they themselves have imported these goods from other countries. Let us take French brandy. We thought that our brandy would be able to find a good market now that French brandy is off the market, but what has happened? French brandy is exported through Portugal to America and from there it is exported again. How is the dealer to know that that brandy comes from America and not from France? It is not our intention to encourage fraud by making it possible for people to sell goods under a wrong description. We do not want any articles to be sold under our name when they are not made in this country. All we ask for is that if a man has acted honestly and straightforwardly, and he can produce evidence before a court of law, because the onus of proof rests on him, he must be able to put up such a defence. Why find a man guilty without further ado? I therefore make an appeal to the Minister and I ask him to consider and to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Beaufort West. If he does not want to accept anything coming from this side of the House—if the Minister thinks that we are simply criticising in order to cause trouble—let him consult the people on his own side. I have discussed the matter with several merchants and dealers and with people on the other side of the House, and I believe that they think as we do on this question, and that the Minister should accept the amendment.

I would appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. I think the object is to protect South African manufacturers and producers which we all want to do. I want to emphasise what is said in clause 7. Clause 7 provides that if you sell an article containing a forged trade mark you are given the chance of proving your innocence, but if you sell an article with a trade mark purporting to be a Union trade mark, but which in fact was manufactured overseas, you are automatically found guilty. If you sell an article which has a South African trade mark on it, while in actual fact it is an overseas article, you have no defence. You may take every precaution in the world but it is no use. The wording of this clause is such that the trade mark need not be forged—it may be some arrangement between the South African manufacturer and the American manufacturer, but it is no use. At one time South African general dealers used to call themselves importers if they wanted to sell their goods, because if a man went into a shop and was told that they were selling South African goods nobody would buy them; everything had to be imported. To-day the position is different. South African goods are becoming so popular that it is conceived that people may sell goods with South African trade marks, although the goods come from overseas. It is a good advertisement for a man to say to-day “Those goods are made in South Africa.” That was not the case 20 years ago. Public opinion has veered round. Under this clause if you sell an American article with a South African trade mark on it you are automatically found guilty. That is the provision in this Bill. It is not a question of forgery—you are selling a South African trade mark article which was not made in South Africa. I think a man should be given an opportunity of proving his innocence. There seems to be a good case for enabling a man under clauses 8 and 9 to be in exactly the same position as under clause 7. There are lots of cases where things occur similar to what is provided for under clause 7. For instance you may buy from a manufacturer an article which is supposed to contain certain ingredients. You cannot analyse every article; you sell it, and if you can prove to the court that you have taken certain precautions the court can accept your plea. I am trying to protect the innocent man here, and if it is necessary to safeguard the innocent man under clause 7, why not do the same under clauses 8 and 9?

I want to say this to the Minister, that we must not make our legislation ridiculous. In regard to clause 7 where it is very easy to prove falsification, or forgery, the Minister gives the person concerned an opportunity of putting forward the defence that he has taken reasonable precautions, and so on. Clause 7 deals with the forging of trade marks and it is comparatively easy for a person to find out whether a trade mark has been forged. Trade marks are registered in the Trade Marks Office, and while it is comparatively easy to find out what the trade mark is yet, the Minister gives such a person a chance of putting forward a defence that he has taken the necessary precautions. As I have said, he can easily find out what the trade mark is. But here in clause 8 where there is practically no chance for the man to find out where the goods originally came from, he is not given a chance to defend himself, and he is simply found guilty on the fact itself. I fail to understand legislation of that kind. Trade Marks are registered and it is easy for the trader to find out whether the trade mark is genuine or not. He can write or go to Pretoria. Under that clause he gets the opportunity of defending himself, but if an article is made in Japan and it is sent from there to the United States, and it comes here from the United States—how is a trader on the platteland to know where such goods are manufactured — yet in a case like that he is not given the option— he is simply found guilty. I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter and that he will accept the amendment, because I am afraid that we are making ourselves somewhat ridiculous with this clause. The Minister goes out of his way in clause 7 to meet the individual, although it is quite easy to find out what the trade mark is and whether it has been forged or not. But under clause 8 where the man has no chance of finding out whether the description is wrong or not, the individual is placed in the position of being guilty of an offence if he sells such an article. I want the Minister to reconsider this matter, and to think over the examples which have been mentioned here. Take any trader in any town in South Africa. You are going to make it impossible for him. Every bottle of medicine on which the letters “U.S.A.” appear will have to be examined in order to find out whether it has been manufactured in the United States of America, because it may perhaps have been manufactured in another country, and then the man is guilty under clause 8. I hope the Minister will tell us whether we are putting a wrong interpretation on that clause. Certain goods are perhaps made in France, but the letters “U.S.A.” appear on them when they are sold in South Africa, and that man will be prosecuted and will have no defence. He is guilty because he has sold an article in South Africa which has been manufactured in France, but which contains the description “U.S.A.” How is that man to find out that it has been made in France? What methods can he adopt? It makes trade in South Africa absolutely impossible. We applaud the principle of this clause, and we know what its object is; we welcome it, but surely a man should be given the same chance of defending himself as we give him under clause 7. He should be allowed to appear in court, and say that he has tried to the best of his ability to find out whether the description is a genuine one or not. I would advise the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Beaufort West. Then there is another point I want to raise. If a trade mark is registered in our country, then the name of the country which the article comes from does not necessarily appear on the trade mark. It is not obligatory under this law or under any other law to indicate on the trade mark the name of the country where the article has been manufactured. I can go to Pretoria, or I can write to the office of Trade Marks, and ask whether the trade mark is genuine, but that trade mark will not necessarily indicate in which country the goods have been manufactured. How, then, can we find out where the goods have been manufactured? I take the word of the wholesaler. I want the Minister to take note of the objections which have been raised by both sides of the House, and I want to ask him not to harden his heart and not to refuse to accept this amendment.

I hope the Minister will not accept the proposed amendment, because I think it will unduly confuse the provisions of the Act. If hon. members read the definition of “trade description” in paragraph 1, they will see that it includes a misdescription as to the place or country where the goods are made. To take a concrete case, if a Union manufacturer puts his name on the goods which come under paragraph 8, and he says that these goods are made in England whereas in fact they are made in Japan, then he gives a false trade description and he can be prosecuted under clause 7, and then the defence which hon. members are now contending for can be brought in.

The name of the country of origin need not be included in the trade mark.

The position is exactly the same in the case of the trade mark; it still falls under section 7. Section 8 only means that when he puts his own name on he must at the same time put on the name of the country of origin. He has to state where the goods come from.

And if he does not put his name on the trade mark?

That also comes under section 7 if it is false.

If he does not have his name on the trade mark, he need not put the country of origin on.

It would confuse the Act if the same defence under section 7 could be applied to section 8 and section 9. If the accused shows that there are conditions under which he was not guilty of any intention of committing a crime, the charge falls away, but if he puts his name on the goods he must put the country of origin on as well.

The man who sells it is the guilty man.

He cannot be charged under section 8 with a misdescription. If he is charged with applying a forged trade description, or a forged trade mark, he must be charged under clause 7.

I am frankly astonished at the remarks from the Opposition. I understand that they are going to start businesses in which all the staff are going to be “ware Afrikaners.” And the goods are all going to be South African goods. When I bring in a clause in order to protect South African products, they all object to it. This clause is brought in so as to prevent people from selling foreign goods and pretending that they are South African goods.

The intention may be quite good.

The intention is there, and the intention is going to be carried into effect. As I say, it is a great disappointment to me to see that the gentlemen on the Opposition side are doing their best to allow a trader to get away with a fraud on the public in that they supply him with foreign-made goods and pretend that they are South African goods. First of all, that is the object of this clause. Now I am told that I must give an offender a chance of getting away with it.

The same chance as in clause 7.

In committee I resisted exactly the same amendment. There is going to be no chance of getting away. If a trader tries to sell foreign goods as South African goods, he is going to be declared guilty. That is the next point I want to make. Then I am told by hon. members opposite, “These poor little people do not know that these goods are foreign goods coming from some of these countries with very bad labour conditions.” They do not know, and therefore they are not going to be punished. They are going to be punished according to the degree of the crime. The magistrate is not going to fine everyone £50 for the first offence, and £200 for the second offence.

How do you know?

Because our magistrates are not fools, that is the reason. I am informed that a magistrate, in such a case, could caution a man and discharge him, find him guilty and caution him, or he could fine him 1s., and the advantage of that is that the next stage would be to get back at the wholesaler who sold that man the stuff. Gradually, we shall eradicate this unsatisfactory position that goods can be sold in this country as having been made in South Africa when they were not made in South Africa at all. The hon. member mentioned brandy. Well, why should a man sell brandy and call it South African if it is not South African?

We are not advocating that; we say that if he does not know anything about it—

Well, he ought to know something about it; I am not giving him any loopholes. If he does not know anything about it, he had better get out of the trade. If a man sells foreign brandy as South African and then stands up and says “I did not know anything about it,” the sooner he leaves the liquor trade the better.

If he has taken reasonable precautions, why not give him a chance?

The retailer has a fairly good chance of, at any rate, getting a mitigation of the sentence. He can insist when he gets goods from a wholesaler on a certificate that they are of South African make. When we have dealt with the little man we will get back to the big man, who is the greater sinner.

How does it help him if he has got a certificate and is found guilty?

His fine will be nominal; he may even be merely cautioned and discharged. I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment. I have made up my mind that nobody is going to pass foreign goods off as South African, whether the gentlemen opposite want it or whether they don’t.

Amendment put and the House divided.

Ayes—34:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. T. Bezuidenhout and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—59:

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Oost, H.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Stallard, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker put the remaining amendment in Clause 8, which was agreed to.

In Clause 9,

I move—

1. (i) that he took all reasonable precautions against committing the offence charged;
2. (ii) that he had at the time of the commission of the alleged offence no reason to believe that the goods had been manufactured or produced in the Union; and
3. (iii) that when demand was made by any inspector, police officer, or officer of customs, he gave to him all the information with respect to the person or persons from whom he had obtained the goods.”

The amendment to clause 9 is exacty similar to that which I move to clause 8. The Minister, that gray gentleman, has, however, finished, and he has told us that he has decided, and there is nothing further to be said. It does not seem to be much use going on. But I do want to say that this amendment is exactly the same as the previous one. We are dealing here with the description on goods either in the English or in the Afrikaans language. It presumes that the goods have been produced in the Union, and if they have not been produced in the Union the man is guilty of an offence without his being given the opportunity of proving that he was unaware of the fact. It is unnecessary to go into the chief remarks of the Ministers in regard to “Ware Afrikaners.” Nothing has been said from this side of the House to give any indication that we are not intent on fully protecting South African goods and South African products, but what we do want to protect is the innocent man who in all good faith receives goods and sells them not knowing that those goods have been imported from elsewhere. I therefore think it most unworthy on the part of the Minister to use arguments of that kind. We are dealing here with a serious matter. The Minister is not addressing a public meeting at Rondebosch or Claremont now. We are dealing here with a subject which is not of a political character. We are dealing with a Bill which is not contentious from a political point of view. We want the provisions contained in our Statute Book to be sound and to be based on common sense, and at the same time we want to have provisions which will not do an injustice to any citizen of this country. As the provisions stand now—and the Minister can talk about “Ware Afrikaners” and other things as much as he likes—those provisions do not offer any protection. And then the Minister comes along with the argument that the magistrate need not necessarily impose the full fine of £50. I am really astounded that a man with the experience which the Minister has should say a thing like that, and should use an argument like that. The question of the weight he carries in this House is a different matter, but in any case he is a man of business experience, and I fail to understand how he can use such an argument. The fact remains that the man is found guilty and he is not given the right which is given to every citizen to prove that he is not guilty. For that reason I again move the same amendment to this clause.

I second, and I shall not detain the House long. The Minister has accused us of wanting to give the man the opportunity of proving that he has not deliberately committed a crime, although the matter at issue is one affecting the manufacture of goods in South Africa. We can only say that the Minister, who is now adopting the attitude of a Dictator, will perhaps be very sorry one day that he has refused to accept our amendment. We are dealing here with goods produced outside the Union, and the Minister cannot use the same argument now as he used in connection with the previous clause. The Minister has decided that he will not accept anything, so he will have to bear the consequences.

I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). This is another case where we are trying to protect the Afrikaans-speaking people by insisting on the country of origin being placed on the goods. I am sorry I have to be obdurate.

Amendment put and negatived.

Amendments in Clauses 12, 14 and 15 put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I have an amendment on the order paper, by which I have tried to meet some of the criticisms that were offered at the Committee stage. I move—

You will notice that I have brought in the screw-stopper, and I have also dealt with bottles that are sold when the whole business is sold. I think that disposes of the difficulties which were raised in Committee.

What about the people who have bought bottles before the operation of the Act?

First of all, I would say that you cannot buy bottles because they do not belong to the person who sells them, they are receivers of stolen goods. I don’t suggest that these people recognise the fact, but anybody who buys bottles, say of Schweppes, the person who sells them has stolen them, they don’t belong to him, in law they don’t belong to him at all, they belong to Schweppes. The hon. member suggests that these people should be specially protected. There is nothing in this Act that prevents any manufacturer, a mineral water manufacturer or a dairyman employing these bottle collectors, or bottle exchanges, to collect his bottles, and to pay a monthly wage or a commission for the work. I don’t see that there is any difficulty in the case. In a very short time the transaction will be perfectly usual. For that reason I have drafted this amendment, which I think meets the difficulties that arose when we were in the Committee stage.

seconded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

The omission of the words in lines 6 and 7 and in line 8 of clause 17 put and agreed to.

I move—

Mr. DAVIS seconded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move—

1. (2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to any transaction whereby any such bottle or screw-stopper is sold—
   1. (a) by the manufacturer thereof to the person named thereon; or
   2. (b) with the whole of the business in connection with which it is used.

Mr. BAINES seconded.

I am anxious that the Minister should understand what I am moving, and I shall therefore try to speak as slowly as I can and as loudly as possible. The Minister says that if I use bottles which belong to some other person then I have stolen them. I should like to explain what the actual position is. Say one has an aerated water factory at Worcester.

I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but I think he should discuss that matter when he moves his amendment.

I intend doing so, I am only introducing it.

It would be better if we were to take the amendments one by one. The amendment which has now been proposed is in line 6, after “bottle” to insert “screw-stopper.”

Then I shall deal with this matter later. I want to thank the Minister for having moved this because it meets one of my objections, namely, that if a man goes bankrupt or sells his business he, if his name is embossed on the bottles, is unable to sell those bottles. I thank the Minister for having removed that objection.

I want to say, first of all, that I appreciate the way in which the Minister has met some of the objections to this clause, but the question raised by the hon. member for Swellendam is not so simply disposed of as the Minister thinks. There may be people who have effected a perfectly genuine commercial transaction who may be placed in some difficulty. And it is therefore better to make the intention clear. If money is paid it is quite within the powers of a court to say that the transaction was in the nature of a sale. But it is not so simple because it is not a fact that the man who buys bottles is naturally a receiver of stolen property. If I go into a chemist shop and I buy a bottle of medicine I buy the bottle and the medicine.

The price of the bottle has been added.

I take a picnic party out and I take a number of bottles of beer; I buy them out and out. I am not compelled to return the bottles. It is only where the seller makes the stipulation that they shall remain his property where the position is different. But the man says to me: “I charge you for the bottle and if you bring it back I shall give you 1d.” Take these overseas people who send bottles of medicine out here. When I buy the bottle I buy the bottle and the contents. Of course, I cannot use the bottle and sell it with other things again, but to say that I am in possession of stolen property because I have a bottle containing the name of a particular firm is ridiculous. I want to give the House some information of what is going on. Just let me explain my amendment. I had to move two verbal amendments which meant moving out certain parts of the Minister’s amendment for the purpose of inserting my amendments, but is was not done with the intention of showing hostility to the Minister’s amendment. I am moving my amendments separately. It is merely a formal thing. If my object is reached the clause which I am proposing will read as follows—

That is where a man collects his own bottles. Or duly appoints, in writing, agents to collect same. I say, in writing, so that there can be no question of fraud. I propose—

As an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Minister of Commerce and Industries—

1. (c) the person named on such bottle or screw-stopper collects same or duly appoints, in writing, agents to collect same notwithstanding the fact that there may be some remuneration—
   1. (i) agreed upon with and paid to the person in possession of the bottle or screw-stopper from whom the collection is made, or
   2. (ii) agreed upon with and paid to the said duly appointed agents who collect the bottle or screw-stopper for the person named thereon.

Just let me say a word or two to show that unless you are going to disorganise a lot of genuine work this amendment should be accepted. Let me tell the House what is going on on the Reef—I do not say that they are more thirsty there than anywhere else, but an enormous quantity of empty bottles accumlates there and there is a concern in Johannesburg called The Rand Bottlers Co., Ltd. All the mineral water factories are subscribers to or shareholders in that concern. There is an exchange yard in Johannesburg which is contributed to, not by the thieves and other undersirable people but by genuine manufacturers. They have opened an exchange yard and have appointed bottle dealers as their agents on certain terms and conditions, and these bottle dealers employ runners who collect the bottles. Would the House be surprised to know that this bottle exchange handles a quarter of a million bottles per month which are collected in this way and which would otherwise go to waste.

That shows the extent of the disease.

The disease; These are the owners who collect them.

Why move your amendment?

Is the hon. member now in charge of the Bill?

No, are you?

I shall try to explain my amendment. A quarter of a million bottles are collected for these manufacturers per month. Now, in the exchange yard all these bottles are mixed up; they are sorted and returned to their owners. The owners are the shareholders in or subscribers to the concern. The bottle dealers who collect them and the runners are compensated and the various owners get back their own bottles. If it was possible for them to go to court and claim the return of their bottles—they would not run this concern.

Do they buy them back?

It might be held to be something in the nature of a sale. The point is that it may be said to be in the nature of a sale because the bottle dealer has to pay for the bottles. When I buy something I pay for the bottle.

No, you pay a deposit.

No, in cases where you pay a deposit that is an intimation that you must return the bottles, but there are thousands of cases where you do not pay a deposit and where you do not return the bottle. The owners in Johannesburg get back their bottles to the extent of a quarter of a million per month. There is an arrangement for instance under which one type of person will hand over bottles to another type of manufacturer. For instance, mineral water bottles may be held by brandy people. Now, the brandy dealer’s agent will go round and he may collect mineral water bottles. He takes them to the exchange yard. The mineral water man gets his bottles back and the brandy man gets his back. The cost is jointly arranged between them all, and here comes the rub. Some people want to be paid for their bottles. There is one point I want to make. This is war time and bottles are difficult to get. You cannot get bottles from overseas and the South African manufacturers are so busy making bottles that you have to wait six months before you can get any. What will happen if you do not make provision?

Go without a drink.

Does the Minister know that the Johannesburg Municipality calls for tenders for people to go through their rubbish heaps to collect goods, including bottles, and people tender to the Johannesburg Municipality and they go and colect bottles. Is there anything illegal in that? The Minister would surely not prosecute the Johannesburg Municipality for encouraging this as a so-called trade in stolen bottles. The successful tenderer is appointed agent by the Rand Bottlers Limited.

There is nothing to prevent that under my Bill.

I have no doubt the Minister does not want to encourage myself and others in our professional capacity, but we are only trying to prevent these things going through the courts. If the Minister says that there is nothing to prevent these things, then why this opposition to the amendment? No, some of the lawyers do not agree with the Minister. Where there is doubt surely the best thing is to clear it up. Why let these things go to the courts and run the people into an unnecessary lot of expenses. If there is no objection except that it is not necessary, why not put it in? There are all kinds of bottles, medicine bottles, cordial bottles, soda water bottles.

What sort of medicine bottles?

Well, take Horlicks.

Good medicine.

Well, the Bill refers to any bottle.

You have not read the Bill. It only refers to a bottle on which is stated clearly that it is the property of …

I am informed by the people that there are such bottles in every line.

Aerated water factories all over the country.

I am not raising any objection to the Bill in its present form. I am trying to help the Minister.

Spare me from my friends.

The Minister will not listen to any amendments. I have to do my duty and bring before the House a very genuine case, and if the Minister will not accept it these peope will have to fight out their troubles in the courts. I have told the House that the Municipality of Johannesburg actually calls for tenders for these bottles—for these abandoned bottles. If an owner sells me a bottle without any reservation, it becomes an abandoned bottle. The bottle has been sold. You cannot retain the ownership if you are seling it with the medicine. Let me say this: that if it was only a question of collecting the bottles and you could collect it for nothing, then there might be something in what the Minister says, but you sometimes have to pay for the bottle. I know owners of flats who get a certain amount of revenue out of selling the bottles they have. They regard it as perfectly legitimate; under the Minister’s Bill it will be an offence. Of course, where you can get your bottles for nothing it is different.

Read the Bill. It says that it has to state on the bottle that the bottle is the property of a named person.

If that man sells his bottle the Minister will not tell me that when I have bought it from the owner I cannot use it for anything at all or sell it. But under this Bill the owner himself cannot buy back his own bottle. Now, having appointed this agent the difficulty occurs in the payment. And that is why I put in this clause that it is not to be an offence. In other words such a transaction whereby a person buys that botte, even if he gives something to his collector, is a legitimate transaction, and shall not be considered an offence, but in every case I provide that the man who is protected shall only be the owner. The owner who collects himself or who appoints an agent to collect for him. And I lay it down clearly that the owner of the bottle is protected. I am only protecting the person where the owner himself is party to the transaction, where money may pass to the man in possession of the bottles. There would be no question of any fraud or theft under my amendment. There can be no question of being in possession of stolen property. I had a letter to-day from a firm of attorneys of high standing here in Cape Town to show what peculiar things take place. The writer draws my attention to a factory here. The customers are small shopkeepers in the suburbs. A wealthy firm in the Union also deals with these shopkeepers, and when its representatives go round to collect bottles from the shopkeepers, they insist on the bottles being handed over, so that the factory owner has to take the other firm’s bottles; presumably it is to encourage the trade with the mineral water manufacturer who is in competition with the factory owner. I am told that in this way the mineral water manufacturers get their rivals’ bottles Under that system the one man is now in possession of 130 gross of his competitor’s bottles. I want to do away with all that sort of thing. I want everyone to get his own bottles back. This manufacturer cannot use the bottles of his rival, so he has to go on getting fresh bottles, and may be eventually squeezed out. With this amendment, you will not have that trouble, because an agent will go round and say: “I want my principal’s bottles.” I have considered this amendment very carefully. There is no intention of covering up any fraud or anything that is wrong. This has the effect of the owner, the person named on the bottle or on the screw-stopper, getting back his bottles. Even if he has to pay for the bottles through his agent, it will not be an offence. I hope the Minister will bear in mind that it is very much better to make things clear than to leave things for the law to settle.

I second this amendment, which to me seems very clear and reasonable. I support it largely on the score that I object to waste. This country is running an anti-waste campaign. I cannot think of anything more inconsistent with the Government’s anti-waste campaign than a Bill sponsored by the Government fostering waste! Under this amendment the owner will be allowed to pay for the collection of his own bottles. It seems a fair and reasonable amendment, and I urge the Minister to accept it in all fairness.

I wish to move the following amendment as a further amendment to the amendment proposed by the Minister of Commerce and Industries—

1. (c) before the commencement of this Act.

Does the hon. member move an amendment to the amendment of the Minister’s?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am following the Minister’s argument. He has made provision that where bottles in a business have been bought and that business is sold, the purchaser of the business can use the bottles. That is clear. Now I want to ask the Minister what is the position in regard to bottles which were bought before this Bill came into force? I want to make clear to him what the position is. He knows that soda water factories often change hands and they are often closed down. It is the sort of business which runs practically for only six months in the year. Assuming there is such a factory at Worcester and the owner wants to shut it down. The business consists of a machine which blows the gas into the water, there are several ingredients which are used, and then there are the bottles. Perhaps nobody wants to buy that factory at Worcester or take it over. Now a man comes along from Robertson who has a soda water business, and he buys the bottles.

He buys the bottles for another business.

I shall explain the position to the Minister. I want to exclude the bottles which were bought before the coming into force of this Act. The position now is that the people who bought the bottles before the coming into force of this Act will not have the right to use those bottles. We deprive those people of their property because they are no longer allowed to use those bottles. This Bill lays down that nobody has the right to use such a bottle after the coming into force of this Bill if those bottles bear the other man’s name. Nobody is allowed to buy or use them. But those people have already bought the bottles before this Bill came into force, and now they are to be prevented from using them. I do not think the Minister understands the position. There are two stages: there is the purchase of the bottle, and there is the use of the bottle. The man has already bought the bottle and he has paid for it, and now he is not allowed to use it. The result is that he is deprived of what he has bought and what he has paid for. That is quite clear. If the Minister does not yet understand the position, I shall explain it to him again. All my amendment now proposes is that where bottles of that kind were bought before the coming into force of this Bill, those bottles will fall outside the scope of the law. I think it is a reasonable request.

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

I do not know whether I can add a great deal to what I have already said. I believe the Minister understands the position, and if he does not understand it the rest of the House will understand it. I only want to have protection in regard to bottles which have been bought before this law came into force. As the Bill now stands, it will simply mean that a bottle which was sold to people and on which a name is embossed is being taken away from the individual. I am sorry I did not have the necessary time to discuss this matter with the Minister. He is apparently prepared to introduce amendments in the Senate if he sees his way clear to do so. I only have in view bottles which have been lawfully obtained and which are the property of people who have paid for them, and on which the name of the owner is embossed. Now those people are to be deprived of their property. I consider that is unfair, and I hope the Minister will understand the position and accept my amendment.

I want to second the amendment. We can find no fault with the Minister’s attempt to put a stop to illegal practices which are taking place in connection with the sale of bottles. But the Minister now wants to go so far as to destroy all trade in bottles and the sale of bottles. Nobody ever imagined that the Minister intended going as far as that but that is the effect of clause 17 (a) of the Bill. Not only are people prevented from selling bottles on which a name is embossed but the owner of that bottle cannot buy his bottle back. Only the manufacturer, the man who has made the bottle, is excluded. It is naturally common sense to exclude the manufacturer but here the Minister is going to destroy the whole of the trade in bottles. It is a good thing to counteract malpractices but surely we should not destroy the whole of the trade. If there are any abuses in connection with the sale of horses or donkeys or any other article, one surely does not set about destroying the whole trade in order to put an end to malpractices. I listened carefully to the debate in order to hear from the Minister what are the special reasons for dragging the sale of bottles into this Bill which principally deals with trade marks. We are not dealing here with bottles bearing any trade marks. That is not what the Bill is dealing with. Otherwise the Minister’s argument might still perhaps have some significance, but bottles are dragged in here by the hair. In other words, in order to satisfy certain big people who are interested in bottles, bottles have to be dragged into this Bill, not bottles bearing any trade mark but bottles bearing the name of the owner. I know people who buy bottles and who collect them at their homes. That is now to become a crime, but what makes it even a bigger joke is that the man whose name is embossed on the bottle cannot buy his bottle back from the person to whom he has delivered it or to whom he has sold it. I have never yet seen such an interference with trade. The name of a trader appears on a bottle. He does not charge the buyer only the price of what is contained in the bottle, but he also asks something extra for his bottle. Take a bottle of beer for instance. The price which is charged is not just the price of the beer in the bottle, but the trader also charges an additional amount for the price of the bottle. I do not know whether the Minister is still interested in the big firm which bears his name, but if his firm were to sell a bottle of medicine the price of the bottle is added to the price of the medicine. For instance, if one buys bottles of Eau de Cologne from the K.W.V. factory that factory does not merely charge the price of the contents, but it adds the price of the bottles, and the shopkeeper in turn sells the bottles to the public and charges the public the price of the contents plus the price of the bottle. People who for instance buy bottles of beer keep the bottles at home and after a time sell those bottles. As a rule they re-sell the bottles to the owner whose name appears on the bottle. This Bill prohibits that sort of thing. It is ridiculous. The Minister wants to meet the request of certain people, and he wants to prevent the evil of people stealing bottles or getting hold of bottles in some other way and then selling them. But if one wants to prevent that evil one should not make one-self ridiculous. I know a business at Athlone for example, which sells ginger beer. That ginger beer is sold particularly to the poorer class of people and large bottles of ginger beer are sold for 3d. The children like that ginger beer. The name of the shopkeeper appears on the bottle. If this Bill is passed that man will not be allowed to buy back his bottles from the people to whom he has sold his ginger beer, and the result will be that he will no longer be able to sell his ginger beer as cheaply as he is doing now.

You did not read the clause properly.

I ask the Minister and his legal advisers to deny it.

The man can buy the bottles back, read the clause.

The owner whose name appears on the bottles cannot buy the bottles back. I do not think it is the Minister’s intention to mislead the House, but let him say clearly whether I am wrong. Surely it is perfectly clear that the man who sells the ginger beer and who puts his name on the bottle cannot buy that bottle back.

No, that is not so.

Then the Minister is reading the Bill differently from what I did. I want to read clause 17 (a) of his own Bill. This is what it says—

Surely if words mean anything these words mean that if a man puts his name on a bottle and he sells it, the bottle may not be sold again by the purchaser, and the seller cannot buy the bottle back. The Minister only exempts the manufacturer of the bottle but nobody else. I should like to know from the Minister under which clause he can make it clear that the man can sell the bottle or buy it back. I challenge the Minister to show it.

I sincerely hope that the Minister will have no hesitation in rejecting the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander). There was no substance in the case which he put up, and to me it was just a sham skirmish. The point raised by the hon. member was that this bottle exchange is doing genuine work in so far as some shareholders are concerned. The mere fact that these people are allowed to run this type of business and recoup themselves obviously suggests that they must pay some commission to collectors to collect these bottles. I am sorry the hon. member is not here to-night, and I would like to ask him who is going to be responsible to see that these collectors collect only the bottles of shareholders, and not those of some other firm. The hon. member himself pointed out that this firm collects 250,000 bottles a month, and I am convinced at least 25 per cent., perhaps more, of those bottles do not belong to the shareholders in that particular business. Now I want to ask him what attitude that particular firm adopts in regard to bottles that find their way into that bottle exchange, and bottles which do not belong to any shareholder of, that particular exchange. Under the common law, the owners of the bottles have every right to go to this exchange and take their bottles, and if that were refused them they would have a right to go to court. This particular firm the hon. member has mentioned, I think it is the Rand Bottle Exchange; and they a few years ago collected the bottles of a well-known mineral water firm in Cape Town, and to show you what I mean in regard to the extent of this illicit traffic that is going on I will quote this case of a well-known mineral water dealer in Cape Town. This firm two or three years ago had occasion to go to law against this particular firm, and claimed back from them 13,858 bottles, 149 syphons and 352 boxes, and the mere fact that these people had to go to law proves that these people did not want to part with that property. Surely it is common knowledge to everybody in this House that under the common law you cannot lose ownership of property. That being so, it may be suggested that it is not necessary for this clause to be inserted in the Bill, but the difficulty is that this type of traffic has assumed such proportions in South Africa that legislation is necessary to augment the common law. The hon. member himself has pointed out that this one exchange collects 250,000 bottles a month, and I think he will agree with me that it is not practical to go along once or twice a month and get your bottles back, bottles which are your own property, and which in most cases it may truly be said were stolen. I want to congratulate the Minister on introducing this clause with a view to stopping this traffic. One or two points have been raised by hon. members, who mentioned the fact that this is war time. If ever there was an amendment put before this House which will have the effect of cutting down the cost of distribution, it is this amendment, and it is especially in war time that it is necessary to keep down the costs of distribution, which can be done to some extent by either reducing the loss of these bottles, or by keeping them in circulation. Another point by the hon. member for Castle (Mr. Alexander), and I think also by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus), is that if anybody buys a brewery bottle of beer that person does not necessarilý have to return that bottle, but I don’t think any firm of repute, say Schweppes or any other firm, will sell that bottle. It must be obvious to anybody that where the contents of the bottle are worth less than the bottle itself, it is not a practical proposition to sell the container with its contents. Take the milk industry: the bottles cost 6d. or 7d. each, and the milk in the bottles is retailed at 4d. The hon. members must be confusing the deposit principle on bottles. I want to re-emphasise the point that the illicit traffic in bottles which has been going on for the last few years has increased to a tremendous extent, so much so that it is impossible for producers or manufacturers to rely on the common law alone to get back their property. These exchanges send out their boys and offer them a commission to collect these bottles, and surely hon. members can appreciate that these boys in back yards picking up bottles here and there are really being induced to steal. The Legislature must look with the greatest disfavour upon any system where there is really an inducement to steal other people’s property. Even if this provision does cause hardship to a few, the clause is necessary to protect those people who are asking for protection. We are not concerned with bottles brought from overseas containing sauces and so on, because naturally the manufacturers do not expect to get their bottles back, the cost of the bottles being covered by the price of the contents. I am not interested one bit in the return of those bottles. May I just say in conclusion that I trust the Minister will not accept the amendment, as it will recognise trafficking in bottles, and it also will allow wrongdoers to cloak colourable transactions. The effect, therefore, will be to make prosecutions well-nigh impossible and defeat the object of the clause.

Perhaps I had better deal with the two amendments at the same time because they more or less hang together. Now the argument of the hon. member for Cape Town Castle (Mr. Alexander) was based on a fallacy. The only bottles which are going to be protected are bottles which state plainly that they are the property of a named person. It does not cover a bottle if it simply has on the outside “Jones’ Chemist” or something like that. That bottle is not touched. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) was under the same misapprehension. The next point I want to make is that there is nothing in this Bill which prevents any person or any company paying any other person or any other corporation a certain price for the work of collecting its bottles. The corporation which does that kind of work can go on merrily. The company which provides the contents of the bottles asks another company to collect the bottles for them, and they can remunerate them for doing so. Now the hon. member for Cape Town Castle astonished me when he told me that this one collecting corporation handles a quarter of a million bottles per month. I knew that the traffic in this bottle business was extensive, but I did not know it amounted to a quarter of a million bottles per month going through one source only. It simply strengthens me in my view that it is very necessary to control this traffic in bottles which is to a large extent a question of receiving stolen goods and holding up the owner of the goods to ransom to get his goods back again. Everyone knows that there is a great deal of stealing of bottles by servants and by people in flats. You can go to any flat at 7 or 8 o’clock at night and collect a barrow full of milk bottles, and if you want to get people to collect bottles in a block of flats the haul is simply tremendous. If you allow that sort of thing you are putting a premium on theft. As regards the hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) she need not worry. All the bottles she refers to do not come within the purview of this Act at all. Now I want to get on to the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren). First of all I have great difficulty in accepting his amendment. How are you going to decide which bottles were acquired before and which after the commencement of the Act? There is nothing on the bottle and the bottle will not talk. You cannot find out whether the bottle was acquired before or after the commencement of the Act. That is a very great difficulty and another thing is that I could not accept the amendment with that wording. The Act does not come into force for six months and I am not going to allow these fellows to carry on with the acquisition of these used bottles. As I pointed out, there will be a minimum of six months before the Act comes into force. During that time these people can get rid of their bottles at present on hand. Another safeguard is that only bottles which plainly state that the bottle is the property of a named person come under the Act. The largest proportion of these bottles do not bear that statement. It means that in the period of six months these various companies will have to affix indelibly to their bottles a statement which brings them within the four corners of this clause. So actually none or very few of the bottles to which the hon. member refers will come within the four corners of the Act.

If I use a bottle with someone else’s name on even if I bought it nine months ago, I cannot use it. It is my property and you are confiscating it.

Nearly all these people who are going to use this Act, you can take their bottles to-day, and do anything you like with them, because they do not bear on them a statement that the bottle is the property of so and so. They have to fulfil the conditions of this Act before they get protection, and as I say, the people who have acquired all these bottles have got six months at least to get rid of them, and even at the end of six months 95 per cent. of their bottles will be free and will not come within the four corners of this Act. But I would say this to the hon. member. It is very difficult in simply two speeches across the floor of this House really to get the essence of what your opponent is saying, and I will say this, that I will carefully go into this matter, and if the hon. member will give me the advantage of his help we can discuss it and if he can persuade me that there is something vitally necessary in his suggestion I can move it in Another Place. At this stage I must turn the amendment down but I do not want to turn it down without giving the hon. member another chance of showing me where I am wrong. Now the hon. member for Moorreesburg wants to know the reason why I have brought this bottle matter in at all. I think he said I had dragged the bottles in by the hair.

By the stopper.

The very statement which the hon. member for Cape Town Castle made about quarter of a million bottles going through one man’s hands in a month gives you an idea of the extent of this traffic. The extent of the traffic is unknown to anyone who is not in this business. I did not know anything about it until I was put wise—after I had brought the same Bill through the Senate, and I thought the case was so strong that I must put something in this Bill. As I said to the hon. member for Cape Town Castle, there is no necessity for these people to buy their bottles back. Under the Act they can pay a certain fee for collecting them.

They charge the public for the bottle.

When they sell the contents they do not sell the bottle. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. Shearer) made that quite clear. It is practically impossible to carry on any trade in soda water or milk if you charge at the same time for the bottle and the contents. From an accountancy point of view it is impossible for them to keep track of all the bottles as they go out and credit them as they come back. These people have enormous numbers of customers and it is impossible for them to keep a running record of their bottles. When you come to syphons I think they do keep tract of them. Of course that is a much more expensive article. The hon. member mentioned that this Bill affects the bottles of K.W.V. Eau d’Cologne. It will not affect them unless they want their bottles back and then they can emboss them.

I quoted them as an instance where they charge extra for the bottle.

Of course they do. In all these things you charge for the bottles but none of these bottles comes within this Act. The effect of K.W.V. putting K.W.V. on a bottle of Eau d’Cologne does not bring it into the Act. I quite agree that if I buy a bottle of Eau d’Cologne it is my property; I generally throw the bottle away into the fire-place. But this clause only deals with things like milk bottles, soda water bottles, some classes of beer bottles, etc. I think I have dealt with all these matters now and I hope the House will now let the clause go through because I think we have shown clearly that it is most necessary to stop this illicit traffic in bottles, and I think the methods by which I am going to work are practicable.

Does the hon. member for Pretoria City (Mr. Davis) move his amendment?

No, Mr. Speaker.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Alexander and Mr. Warren to the new sub-section (2) proposed by the Minister of Commerce and Industries put and negatived.

New sub-section (2) proposed by the Minister of Commerce and Industries put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 20 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move—

Mr. FRIEND seconded.

Just one word. We lay it down in this Bill that the country of origin must be stated by the seller, that is to say the country in which the goods are manufactured. The Minister will remember that during the discussion on this Bill we asked him to go a step further and also to compel people in the trade to place on the trade mark the name of the manufacturer. The Minister on one occasion said that he had no objection to that principle but that he anticipated certain practical difficulties in connection with the execution of the idea. Now I just want to ask the Minister when the Bill is being discussed in Another Place to keep this matter in mind as he has no great objections to the principle, that we in South Africa should take the further step of having the name of the manufacturer affixed to the trade mark—and I should like him to give an indication whether he intends to remove the practical difficulties which he has in mind. At every corner we find advertisements of articles which are offered for sale, and we do not know who has manufactured those articles. One of the difficulties mentioned by the Minister is that where a small mark is placed on an article there will be no room for the name of the manufacturer. He may for instance have in mind a case such as this, that on the trade mark there are more words than just the words “trade mark” and the name of the manufacturer would have to be added there. I am mentioning this just as a suggestion and the Minister can express his opinion when the Bill is under consideration in the Other Place. He may keep the matter in mind and remember that so far as the principle is concerned both sides of the House are in agreement on this point.

As I said in the Committee stage I am sympathetic towards the intention of the hon. member, but so far I have found no way in which I can practically adopt it. I shall give him an undertaking that I shall again go into it and see whether it is possible to attain the objects which he wishes and which I consider a good one. I do not think I can go any further than that.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

With the permission of the Committee I woud like to withdraw the amendment which I have previously moved and to substitute a new amendment. On reconsideration it appears to me that this amendment perhaps expresses my views badly. In other words, the wording placed the full control in the matter of prescribing routes in the hands of municipalities, and left this position, that unless the municipality was prepared to subscribe routes it was impossible for the Central Transportation Board to do anything at all. I now want to move a new amendment, which reads as follows:

1. (iv) by the insertion, at the end of subsection (1), of the following provisions: “Provided that a certificate or exemption issued by the Board as aforesaid shall not authorise the holder thereof to carry on motor carrier transportation over any public road or part of a public road within the area of jurisdiction of a city council, borough council or town council if it is unlawful under any ordinance, regulation or by-law in force in the area in question, or as a result of any action taken by the council concerned under any such ordinance, regulation or by-law to use that road or part of a road in operating any vehicle or effecting any transportation of the class to which belongs the vehicle or transportation in respect whereof the said certificate or exemption was issued.”

That amendment, I understand, fully covers the position which has apparently arisen in Natal whereby there has been a doubt as to whether an Ordinance of 1920 passed by the Provincial Council of Natal had been superceded by a proclamation issued by the Minister for the Central Road Transportation Board. If that was so, the amendment which I now suggest overcomes that and brings the position back to where it originally was, and the position is now that while applications can be made to the Central Transportation Board for permission to use certain routes within a transportation area it is possible for the City Council using the various Ordinances passed by the Provincial Council to raise objections, and in the circumstances it will not be possible for the Central Transportation Board to grant certificates. I will withdraw my original amendment in favour of the one which I have moved.

With leave of the Committee, the first amendment, moved by Mr. Burnside, was withdrawn.

I should like to say that as the hon. member has met me rather more than halfway, it is only right that I should be prepared to accept this amendment, and I do so all the more gladly because I do not want unnecessarily to interfere with local authorities, with the rights of any municipality within their own area. I am personaly a believer in local government, and as the ratepayers have paid for the roads they should have some say in the use of those roads so long as they do not interfere …

What about the divisional councils?

We have dealt with them; I am satisfied that in the amendment now moved justice is done to the municipalities, without interfering with the functions of the Transportation Board. I have pleasure in accepting the amendment.

I hope the Minister will meet me in the same way as he has met the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside); I just want to ask for leave to withdraw an amendment. I made a proposal in clause 4 to add a new sub-section, but I am advised that that proposal cannot be introduced in that form as the clause deals with powers of inspectors. I therefore ask for leave to withdraw the amendment so that I may move another amendment.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment by Mr. Warren to insert a new subparagraph to follow sub-paragraph (h) was withdrawn.

I want to move the following amendment—

1. (v) by the addition at the end of the section of the following new subsection:

I shall read it in both languages if I am allowed to do so, so that the Minister will be able to follow me. (Amendment moved in both languages.) I feel sure that I may make an appeal to the Minister to accept this. In this connection I only want to point out what are the reasons why I think he should accept it. I want to read what the Minister said in 1930 in leading the Opposition against the Bill, when it was originally introduced. The Minister surely has not changed his principles. This is what he said in 1930:

That is what the present Minister said when, on behalf of the then Opposition, he spoke on the original Act. But that is not all. He further said this—(see Hansard, vol. 15, column 3682)—

That is the Commission which was appointed to look into the original Bill. The first principle of which the Commission has addressed in the following pregnant sentence:

Then he goes further, and I quote from column 3685 and column 3686—

The Minister there spoke of vested rights. I think I have now made clear the principle on which the original law was based, namely, no monopolies, no vested rights; that, at any rate, was the Minister’s opinion, and that is why I feel that I have the right to-day to ask him to support my amendment. But while I ask him to support me, I feel compelled to make it clear to the House what these local transportation boards are doing. They have the right in their own discretion —they need not give any reasons—to issue licences to people applying, but if they think it is unnecessary to grant more licences they can refuse to give any, without stating any reasons. Now we are told that we can appeal, but what is the use of appealing? It is left to their discretion to say what is to be done. It is left to them, and if one were to appeal, they would say: “We are sorry, we are unable to help you because they have the discretion and they have used their discretion.” Now let us see what the conditions are that have arisen in the towns and dorps. The Minister should realise that transport in the wheat districts and in the wine districts is a matter of vital importance. In a district such as Robertson alone, every year 50,000 leaguers of wine have to be conveyed to the town, and one can only put two or three leaguers on a lorry. A large number of people make a living out of carting wine. Hon. members will understand that if a farmer has a production of 500 leaguers and he has to cart his wine at the rate of two or three leaguers per load, it will take him nearly a year to despatch his wine. One cannot cart the wine with ox or mule transport. It is essential to move the commodity as quickly as possible, and it is a matter of vital importance to the wine farmers. But what has happened now? The Transportation Board refuses to issue any further licences. There are about sixty lorry drivers, and it is now laid down that no further licences are to be granted. If I want to get in I have to buy out another lorry driver for £15 or £20 in order to be able to get a licence. The lorry drivers have got together, and they are able to control the transport. They know that no more people can get in, and they are therefore in a position to demand what they want. That is an unsound position, but they go further. I have heard of a bus route which has been acquired for more than £1,500—merely for the right to take a man’s route. The original law surely was not intended to create such positions, to have a monopoly created in respect of the use of the road. We know that the Commission’s report said that that sort of thing should not be allowed. Now I say, “Very well, let the board carry on with the powers it has—I only ask that no monopoly shall be created, and that no vested rights be allowed to come into being.” I think I have put the position clearly, and that I can claim the Minister’s support. If he does not support me there must be something wrong. It will appear to me that the big man has to be protected. For instance, the running of trolley buses from Cape Town to Bellville is now being made possible. Those trolley buses will not be subject to the regulations to which bus drivers are subject. The fares of a bus driver can be fixed, and he has to drive his bus at all hours of the day, but a rich trolley bus company can step in and kill the bus service, because they are able to fix a lower tariff, and, being a strong company, they can also afford to have their buses running at certain hours only, while the bus driver has to keep his service going all day long. I therefore ask the Minister to support me. [Time limit.]

I want to ask the Minister whether he has accepted or rejected my amendment of last night?

Yes, the last one you moved I am accepting.

I think it is due to the House that we should have a little more explanation about this amendment by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), who has now cleared out of the House. I think we should have a little more clarity in the matter, because this amendment was not on the minutes, and we have not had time to study it. Does it really mean that the Board of Control is deprived of all authority does it, really mean that your local authorities, are being given the powers that the Control Board had previously; does it mean that if a certificate is issued, the local authority can then come along and refuse the route over which that particular certificate is issued and put that man off the road? I would very much like to know that before we discuss the matter any further, and before I express any opinion on it. I would like the Minister to give us his views on the matter.

I listened with surprise and dismay to the statement by the Minister accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside). The Minister says that the hon. member for Umbilo met him more than half way, but my own feeling is that the Minister has scored a very Phyrric victory, for unless I read the amendment wrong, the effect of it, if accepted by this Committee, would be to stultify entirely in any case of conflict between the local or central board, and the local authority, any certificate which has been granted by the Board. It would stultify the board and make it possible for the local authority by some by-law to make the issue of a motor carrier certificate a dead letter. The Minister made it clear yesterday when he was strongly opposing a much less important amendment by the hon. member for Umbilo than this one, that there is not much friction between the Transportation Board and the municipalities. On the whole the two bodies work harmoniously together, and the possibilities of friction or disagreement between them are not frequent. Having had the opportunity of frequently appearing before the Transportation Board in my own province, sometimes on behalf of the local authority and at others on behalf of private operators, I can confirm all that the Minister has said, that the attitude of the board throughout has been eminently fair towards local authorities. In fact, in the opinion of many, the board was too fair, too partial to local authorities, so there is no ground for the fear expressed by the hon. member for Umbilo that either the central or the local boards are hostile to municipalities. They are not, they do their best to discharge their functions of regulating transportation with due regard to the feelings of local authorities. I emphasise that because I want to make the point that the possible instances of conflict between the board and the local authority are very few. The hon. member for Umbilo instanced one, he referred to the application last year, and he read extracts from the judgment to suggest that the local board had overruled the town council in that case, and had laid it down that their own authority was superior to the authority of the town council. Well, my hon. friend, who unfortunately has another engagement to-night, unintentionally no doubt misread the position. He read part of the judgment to the House, and did not read the concluding part, in which the central board went out of its way to indicate that it was not concerned with deciding whether or not it had overriding powers. All that the central board did was to refuse or grant the application before it, and the chairman went out of his way to show that all that the board did was to decide whether to grant a certificate without being concerned, whether that certificate had any legal validity in the teeth of a municipal by-law. The board has the duty to go into each question on its merits, and if it thinks that a particular service is justified by the exigencies of the situation, its duty is to grant a certificate. If there happens to be, as there was in a case two years earlier, a conflict between the attitude of the board in granting a certificate and the attitude of the local authority, then in my submission the certificate of the Central Transportation Board should prevail over the by-law. If my hon. friend objects to the whole idea of motor carrier transportation legislation, I could understand it, but the Minister himself yesterday was at great pains to say that all he wanted was equal treatment for all, that either all came under the jurisdiction, or none did. I am the more surprised to find that he has resiled from his attitude of yesterday, and now takes up the attitude that the municipal authority is entitled to an absolute supremacy, an absolute veto of the position of the Transportation Board if a certificate issued by the board concerns the area within its jurisdiction. My submission is that conflicts between these authorities are few and far between, and for that reason I suggest that to accept this amendment is dangerous, because it does make it possible for a local authority to abuse its local powers. I am not saying that any particular authority is likely to abuse its powers, but I think it is our duty, in putting through legislation, so to draft it that there shall be no possibility of abuse. It is quite obvious in what way these abuses could come about under this amendment. If the local authority has, as in the case of Natal and the Transvaal, the power to prescribe routes, it means simply this, that where the board has granted a certificate the council or local authority can make that of no effect by refusing in the case of a new route, to proclaim that route as a transportation route. If that attitude is taken up by the municipalities then that certificate is of no use. It is equally open to the local authority to exercise its power to de-proclaim a route already proclaimed. In this way the municipality can eliminate private competition and achieve for itself a monopoly. I don’t say that any particular municipality is intending to use such powers unfairly or indeed will so use them, but I do say that this amendment leaves that possibility open. Not only does it render useless the jurisdiction and authority of the board within a municipal area, but it opens the possibility for abuse, and for that reason I hope the Minister will not go out of his way to insert in this Bill what is not in the original draft, and that is an entrenchment of the powers of municipal authorities, and an overriding of the motor carrier certificate in those rare instances where there might be conflict between the local authority and the Central Transportation Board.

I understood from the Minister that he had decided to abide by the undertaking which he gave when he introduced this Bill, to the effect that there would be no variation of the principle underlying the original Act. By adopting this amendment, if I understood it correctly, there is a basic variation of that principle, because within municipal areas, within the areas of local authorities, he now proposes to give the local authority the absolute control of transportation, and allows the local authority to compete with the Railways without any control whatever, which is, of course, a variation of the whole principle upon which the Act was originally framed. It seems to me that this is not an occasion on which a far-reaching innovation into the principles of the Act should be adopted. The whole of the Witwatersrand, for example, can be excluded from the jurisdiction of the board, and the local authority there could run buses in competition with the Railways and undercut the Railways as far as passenger traffic is concerned. I think the Minister has gone quite far enough and has treated the municipalities quite fairly by excluding electric tramcars and trolley buses from the operation of the Act, and it is not necessary to go further.

I should like to have a little information from the Minister in connection with this important question. It appears from the new amendment proposed by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) that the position is as follows: That if outside a certain municipality there is a small dorp which is fed by only one road running to it, the municipality under this amendment has full power to say “I am not going to allow the road going there to be used for motor vehicle traffic.” That sort of thing is very dangerous, because a municipality would be able for years to prevent the development of an outside place or dorp until such time as the municipality might consider that it would pay it to establish a motor service to such a place. Until such time it can stop everything. I admit that there is an improvement in the new amendment which boils down to this, that if a municipality closes a road to motor traffic, the municipality itself cannot have motor traffic along that road either. But that does not remove the fact that the powers placed in the hands of municipalities are undoubtedly too large. If we look at the matter from another point of view, we find that farmers outside the towns have their goods conveyed into town by motor lorries. The municipality can close the only road available to such traffic, and the farmer will then be unable to use the nearest road to his market, or to his place of despatch. The transport rider who carries the farmer’s goods may have to go two or three miles out of his way. The whole business is wrong. The principle underlying the amendment is also bad. One of two things: either the Central Transportation Board must have full power over the control of motor transport, or it must have no such power. I feel that this amendment will constitute a serious obstacle in the way of the Central Transportation Board, and it is undoubtedly in conflict with the general principle of this legislation. For that reason I should like to ask the Minister to meet my objections in this connection. If he cannot do so, I shall regretfully be compelled to vote against the amendment.

I think the case that the hon. member is putting up against the municipalities is scarcely justified, because to begin with it is not at all clear that the municipalities have not got that right now. The municipality can do what it likes with its own streets, a municipality can close a street, it can make it a one-way street, it has all sorts of powers over its streets, and it would be quite futile to overrule a municipality within its own area and dictate to it exactly how its streets are going to be used, which routes are to be used as bus routes, and which are not. That does not seem to me to be a sensible power. If you cannot trust municipalities or anybody else to administer any law fairly, of course to pass legislation becomes quite impossible, but if you are to give that discretion to anybody, it seems to me that discretion should be left to the municipal council, who cannot do anything at all in the direction of enforcing the provisions of this Bill without having the authority of the Provincial Council to do so. So that, in fact, you have a double check. I think that is complete control.

I think the best control is that you can throw out the members of a municipality, but you cannot throw out the members of the board.

Quite, if a municipality behaves itself unreasonably it will be thrown out of power. If it is corrupt and gives way to big corporations or big business, it will be thrown out of office; that is, after all, the best form of democratic government—that the people who pay the rates should have at least some say how the roads for which they pay are to be used. It might very easily be that a certificate was asked for a route quite unsuitable for carrying heavy motor buses, and yet the municipality who have to keep that road up would have no say at all, according to my hon. friend, as to whether that route was to be used or not. There is the further point that a certain measure of control in regard to these roads is essential. Supposing a motor bus owner wants to start a route at the entrance to a railway station, or some other congested area, has the municipality no right to say “No, you can’t block up the whole of our traffic”? No, I think the House will agree with me that in giving the municipality this modified right, and remember it is quite clear in this amendment it is only exercising that right under an ordinance, regulation or by-law, so that it must first obtain power to do it, we are ensuring that they must exercise their power reasonably, otherwise it will be taken away. The Provincial Council is the body that controls municipalities, and not the Minister of Railways. For these reasons I hope hon. members will withdraw their objections, and will agree with me that the best people to control the routes in a given area are the public authorities in those areas, and accept the amendment that I have accepted from the hon. member for Umbilo. The amendment he proposed yesterday was quite a different kettle of fish. He proposed yesterday that unless they proclaimed a route nobody could use it, so that all the town council had to do was to sit back and do nothing, and refuse to proclaim any route. Under his modified amendment, the Government can use all the routes in a municipality, the Central Transportation Board may certify all the routes in a municipality, unless the municipality, under power vested in it by the Provincial Council, says that a particular route is not to be used by buses. Then they have to provide another route. So that I think the hon. member’s fears are quite groundless, and I hope the House will accept the amendment.

The Hon. the Minister did not reply to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren), and I hope that we may take that as a good sign showing that the Minister is leaning over to us, and that he will accept the amendment. I think the Minister will agree with me that it is generally admitted, not only in South Africa but everywhere, that monopolies should not be allowed. Let us take notice, for instance, of the fact that a country like America has passed special legislation against the creation of monopolies. I am not going so far as to say that the deletion of this amendment will constitute the creation of a special monopoly, but I do say that there is a distinct risk of a monopoly being steadily created, and these rights are being granted to a local body and such local body is given the power to determine how many licences for bus services are to be granted. Apparently the Minister himself in the past realised that there was such a risk, as is shown by the quotations read from the speech which he made in 1930 on this particular Bill. The Local Board grants licences and the position is that they may use their discretion. If an appeal is taken from the Local Board to the Central Board, the Central Board will say that the Local Board has used its discretion and that it does not like interfering with the decision of the Local Board. There definitely is a danger of a monopoly being set up. I also want to refer to another aspect of the matter I am prepared to take it for granted that there are many honourable men serving on the Local Boards, but we must also take into account the fact that where large interests are at stake, and where large sums of money are being paid for licences the danger of corruption does arise in cases of this kind. That is something we have to guard against. I can see no real objection to this amendment. It is a safety valve and no more, and it is in accordance with the general feeling which prevails in South Africa as well, that we should guard against the creation of monopolies. For that reason I support the amendment.

It seems to me strange indeed to hear the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland) declaiming with such passionate eloquence in favour of a distant authority as against one which is near. My experience is, and I think it is that normal humanity as a whole, “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know,” and the local authority is, I submit, most thoroughly in a position to know what the local requirements are. I support this amendment by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) and accepted by the Hon. Minister, because it makes no inroad of any kind on the principle which the Bill fundamentally stands for. It does not weaken the central control of the mass of traffic along the great arteries of the Union and it leaves unimpaired the routes of the Board.

The Durban bus owners do not think so.

I am not speaking as the mouthpiece of the bus owners. What is done by this amendment is that an exception is made with regard to municipalities, but that is a logical division, it is not arbitrary at all. I submit that the South African roads themselves fall into two separate departments and call logically for distinctive treatment. There are the general roads which are paid for by the public as a whole, including the citizens of the towns.

There are the main highways from the interior to the great cities and to the coast. But there are other streets which are exclusively paid for by the citizens of a given area, within municipal boundaries. Now it does seem perfectly fitting that there should be strict control, for example, over private profit-making verhicular traffic which tears up the common road, the road provided for at the expense of all. But it also seems quite reasonable that a certain amount of discretion shall be left to the citizens in the using of their own streets for which they have paid. They exclusively finance the piper, and are entitled to choose the tune. They are most unlikely to put anything in the way of any amenity of their particular borough. I submit that the City Council is the governing body of a town. They are elected by the burgesses to exercise such control, and how anyone can argue that they should not be allowed to do it passes my comprehension. Surely the people of Durban, for instance, know better than any strangers can possibly do where they want their trams to run. Surely the people who have to control the communal and other transport of the town, those who stand to pay any losses which may accrue from using the wrong sort of buses, or using the buses in the wrong places, are the persons who pre-eminently should be listened to in this matter. I have nothing but commendation for the enterprise and courage of the Minister. Certainly it is his foresight and common sense which has prompted him to give the bigger municipalities some discretion in this direction. It will be a very popular concession, one widely appreciated and productive of much good. There has been growing a feeling—at least in Durban— a feeling of grievance, a sense of resentment against the Central Road Transportation Board. Citizens have had a feeling of grievance and of frustration. This sensible provision will go a long way towards easing that. I suggest that the advantages manifestly outweigh any disadvantages which may accrue, and urge the Committee of the House to accept the amendment without hesitation and without fear.

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), and I hope the Minister will not be stampeded by the hon. member from an adjoining constituency—the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland). Surely if it is right for the Railway Administration to bring in a Transportation Board to protect the interests of our Railways, that same provision should be allowed to the municipalities. Surely we can give the local authorities some control over their own areas to protect their own interests so far as transport is concerned. In Natal the provincial council passed an Ordinance to deal with this matter, but the Executivé was more or less forced to come to an understanding with a Minister in regard to this Bill. It would be as well if I were to read a telegram received from the Municipal Association which seems to crystalise the opposition to the Bill so far as it affects motor transport in the municipalities. This is what it says—

This matter was debated at length, and I think it was made clear that the municipalities were not prepared to accept the position as it is at present. And to expect Durban to approach another Minister to rectify the position there is asking far too much. The Minister of the Interior, I feel certain, would refer us back to the Minister of Railways, and we would be told that while this Bill was before the House that was the opportunity which the Minister should have taken to bring the position existing in Durban to a satisfactory conclusion. I am glad the Minister is taking the opportunity of accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo to put this matter right. If we had to compare figures for previous years we would find that so far as Durban is concerned at any rate we have not been able to increase the seating capacity of buses in Durban owing to a certain amount of unfair competition which we have been having there. Figures were quoted earlier on during this debate which proved conclusively that it is absolutely necessary that some control should be given to our municipality in regard to pirate buses which are using our roads, paying nothing for the upkeep, and in addition are very dangerous in many cases, and far from being satisfactory. If the Minister is still of opinion that the Transportation Board is essential for the welfare of the Railways, I sincerely hope he will stand by this amendment. No reason has been put up why he should at this late hour go back on the undertaking he gave to the hon. member for Umbio, and I certainly hope that the Durban Municipality and every local authority will appreciate what the Minister is doing, and that they will be allowed to control their own transport just the same as the Railways control their own transport.

My hon. friend who has just sat down spoke about stampeding. I am afraid it is not the Minister who is being stampeded by my objections. I am afraid certain hon. members are being stampeded by the sheafs of telegrams they have been receiving from the Durban City Council or the Natal Municipal Association. Hon. members talk about grievances and dissatisfaction with the Board. What evidence is there that the municipalities are dissatisfied with the working of the board? I challenge hon. members to give me instances where the Board has exercised their powers unfairly to the municipalities. There are very few instances of friction between these two bodies, and the rejection of this amendment does not mean taking away any powers from the municipalities. Local authorities have, by Provincial Ordinances, certain statutory powers, general powers, and in 900 out of 901 cases they are not interfered with in the exercise of these powers. It is just the odd case where the Board may come to a different conclusion from the municipality. The Minister suggests that my objections savour of lack of faith in the municipality, and the hon. member for Durban North (the Rev. Miles-Cadman) says that I am favouring the distant authority as opposed to the authority on the spot. I think the boot is on the other foot. The Minister’s acceptance of this amendment implies lack of faith in the Central Transportation Board. Because the Minister states that if there should be a conflict between the Board and the local authority, the chances are that the local authority which is an interested competitor is likely to be more impartial and more likely to be right than the impartial body which comes down to deal with appeales from the local board and on that local board there is a member appointed on the nomination of the local authority. So the Minister is saying: “I have no confidence in my local board to be more impartial than the local authority which is an interested party.” I concede that it is right and proper for local authorities to have the powers which they have under the Ordinance generally to prescribe routes, but I make this point, that where legislation has provided that a carefully appointed impartial body such as the Central Transportation Board is there to co-ordinate transportation, that that body is more likely even if it is distant, to be impartial and to look fully and more dispassionately at the circumstances of every application than the competitor of an applicant. Nothing the Minister has said has affected that and I am afraid that what the Minister has said does not convince me that the amendment is not un unwise one. Because there is no real safeguard against a local authority opposing a particular application by some outside operator, and using all its resources to prevent that operator from carrying out a motor carrier service. There is nothing to prevent a local authority from being actuated by motives of wanting to gain a monopoly, for it is quite a reasonable course for any competitor to take, and the fact that they have general powers by ordinance to prescribe routes has nothing to do with the fairness or otherwise of their attitude towards a particular application. It is the exercise of the powers which is at issue, and my submission is that an impartial body like the Central Board are better fitted to test the exercise of municipal power in any particular application. There is another point. The Transportation Act by section 20 is expressly stated to be in addition to existing legislation dealing with motor transport and not to upset it in any way. This amendment may very well upset previous legislation. If this amendment is accepted, it runs counter to section 20 in that it prescribes for the whole of the Union that the local authority shall have overriding powers, irrespective of what local laws may be, irrespective of whether the doubts which the hon. member for Umbilo voiced in regard to the legal position in Natal are correct or not. Irrespective of whether the local authority has or has not that overriding power. The hon. member for Pretoria City (Mr. Davis) said that there was something new and farreaching in the Bill. That is perfectly correct. The Minister is laying down a new principle in regard to the overriding powers of the local authorities, whatever the local laws may say about the relations between the local authorities and the Transportation Board. For those reasons I still hope that the Minister will not introduce this contentious point in the Bill, but adhere to his original intention to leave the position as it is in the various provinces without trying to lay down a new law for the whole Union.

Having listened to the reply of the hon. the Minister and having already shown the degree of control possessed by the Municipal Council, we are still in the same position which we discussed yesterday, that there is one-sidedness and that in the sense that the Municipal Council has a representative on the Local Council while its competitors, the Railways and private enterprises, are not represented on the Local Council. That already is a one-sided position, so one-sided that we must expect the Municipal Council to be in a favoured position. We go further. We can look at what the Municipal Councils have already done in respect of private enterprises. I mentioned certain instances here yesterday and I now wish to mention further instances. I want the Minister to take note of the fact that the private person undertaking a service invests his money in such a business— whether it is a little bit or a lot does not matter—he puts all his capital in such a bus service, and he is prepared to act as pioneer on a new route and to find such a new route which so far is unknown. In that way he makes it easier for the inhabitants living in those parts of the country or in the town— he makes it easier for them to get transportation facilities. He goes along and he incurs a lot of expense and provides transportation facilities to people who in the past did not have such transportation facilities. Immediately such a private enterprise shows a bit of profit, or immediately it is shown that there is a possibility of developing a transportation route which is going to pay, the Municipal Council goes along and also operates along that route, and cuts fares. The Municipal Council does the work cheaper and carries the people more cheaply because it is not using its own money but the money of the ratepayer. The Municipal Council does not speculate with its own money but with other peoples money, and it does not mind working at a loss. We know of one Municipal Council which lost £154,000 in one year on its transportation services. Why? Is the management so inept? Is it due to their administration not being properly looked after, that they make those losses, and that they are not able to control and manage things as well as private enterprise? Because private enterprise is showing a profit where the Municipal Council is not doing so. My hon. friend (Mr. Derbyshire) spoke on behalf of the Municipal Councils; my Socialistic Labour friend (the Rev. Miles-Cadman) who should protect the poor man now stands up here on behalf of big capital instead of defending the man with small capital. Are they speaking from experience and with authority about the transportation position in the Union, or are they only speaking about transportation in Durban and the area in which they live? I want to read a telegram which I have received. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Derbyshire) read a telegram from Durban which was sent by the Municipal Council. Let me read a telegram which I received ten minutes ago—

I should like to know what my friend has to say about that. This telegram comes from Durban; it seems to me he does not even know that there is an organisation of private bus owners. The fact of the matter is that he, and those other hon. members, are representing large capital, and that they are assisting the Municipal Councils to cut the throats of the small man with little capital.

I received a telegram from your area urging the very opposite.

Let me tell the hon. the Minister that I know what the position is in Benoni. Who are the people who are investing capital for transportation facilities to Brentwood and Kempton Park? And from whom did both get their transportation facilities? Not from the Municipal Council of Benoni but from private owners. I am pleased the Minister of Labour made that remark. It takes him nearer and nearer to the Capitalistic Party; he is no longer a Labour man. We are concerned here with the small investor of money, the man with a small pension who invests a little money in a transportation service to make a living. It is not our intention to deprive Local Authorities of their rights. We know that certain powers have been granted to them under Provincial Ordinances, and we grant them those rights. We are prepared to admit that they have a say and control over roads in the municipalities, but the Minister must not come and tell me that the municipality is the owner of the road. It is my property, the property of the inhabitants of the area. We pay rates for those roads, the roads are built out of our money, and we demand that we shall be granted transportation facilities. I demand that on behalf of the people who are not getting those facilities, as the Town Council has never yet considered it worth while providing transport facilities to those people. If private enterprise has to be interfered with, and if local authorities have to exercise control and are to have the right to say whether a man is to be allowed on the road or not, then local authorities must be compelled to supply the necessary transportation facilities. If they are unable to do so, it is not right to give them all those powers. I am a ratepayer, and I stand by the municipalities and municipal councils as an institution, and I say that they must have certain powers; but if they cut out their competitors, namely, the Railways and private enterprise, then they must be compelled to supply the necessary facilities. Failing that, I cannot associate myself with this proposal. I should like the Minister to explain what the position is. The Minister should realise that in accepting this amendment and in granting further rights to the municipalities, he has practically accepted a vote of no confidence in his Transportation Board. The Transportation Board in actual fact no longer exercises control; it no longer has any say. The Transportation Board has been appointed to grant certificates, and it is now being deprived of its powers. If they have granted a licence to a private owner who is prepared to do the pioneer work and to develop a transportation route for the convenience of the public, the Municipal Council will now have the right to veto such a licence and to say that that route is not to be used for transportation purposes. Then what rights has the Transportation Board? What is left to them? Why are they still there? If the local authorities have the right to set aside and ignore everything the Transportation Board does, we may as well save this £30,000 which is being spent to-day on the Transportation Board and its administration. We may just as well abolish the Transportation Board. I am sorry the Minister did not give us a proper reply to those points, points which to my mind are well founded. He does not give his proper attention to them, and we are prepared to continue opposing this proposition even if it should be for a week.

I am sorry when I spoke last I did not reply to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren). I would suggest that he, as a lawyer, will probably realise that the wording of this amendment leaves it somewhat vague and embarrassing, and I think it would be extremely difficult to give it any practical application at all. In regard to his point that everything is left to the discretion of the local board, he forgets that there is an appeal to the central board.

It is no good appealing.

The central board can override the discretion of the local board.

No, they cannot.

Oh, yes, there is no question about that; what would be the point of the central board otherwise? Then, with regard to special facilities, certificates are issued to meet special demands, so that his remarks in that regard were not altogether justified. But the point I want to make is this: anything in the nature of a road transportation certificate must in the nature of things create a vested right, create a monopoly, and this Bill is necessary, because when you create such a monopoly it is of the first importance in the interests of the public that that vested right shall be controlled, and the purpose of the Act is to control such monopolies. It is not a question of avoiding the creation of monopolies; you must inevitably create a monopoly. If I get a certificate to run a motor bus service on a road, within a week I have established a vested right, I have sunk capital and done all the things that amount to establishing a vested right; no one can help that. To say that the central board must not do that is to say they must not function. Having established that right, it is important that it should be controlled so that it is not abused.

If I have a certificate over a certain route, does it follow that the board will give me that certificate next year?

Not necessarily, only if you behave yourself. I am sure, in the case of the hon. member, he will get his certificate every year, but there may be some people who would not get a renewal, because they have not carried out the conditions of the certificate.

Then there is no vested right.

Not in that sense, but it is a vested right in the sense that as long as he behaves himself the presumption is that he will continue to get it; for the time being it is a vested right and a monopoly. I am very sorry, but it is quite impossible to accept the hon. member’s amendment, although I sympathise with the purpose he has in view.

With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Friedlander), which appears on page 241 of the Order Paper, the two things asked for were first that the appeal to the central board should be restricted to evidence which had been laid before the local board; in other words, proceedings before the central authority would be in the nature of an appeal rather than a re-trial. The Minister refused that, and I think rightly. I agree that it should not be accepted by this Committee, and that the central board should retain its full discretion to go into the merits of any application just as fully as the local board. I am not pleading in any sense for that first part. The hon. member for Wynberg, however, went on to advocate a second change in the present position, namely, that was in all proceedings before the local and central boards the evidence must be on oath. For my part, I would gladly see that if I felt it was practicable. I don’t recollect what reason the Minister gave for declining it, except it might very well be found that to introduce compulsory evidence on oath would prolong the proceedings interminably, and there are a great many of these applications before the local boards. For that reason, I don’t propose to ask the Minister to reconsider his position in regard to the amendment as a whole, but I do want to make the suggestion that he should allow evidence to be led on oath at the discretion of the central board. I believe only about 5 per cent. of cases go on appeal to the central board, and the amount of work involved before that board is nothing like what it is before the local board. It seems to me there is a lot to be said for empowering the central board to have evidence before it on oath. The sort of evidence that gets led, particularly before the local board, is very queer evidence, there is no semblance of a check on the truthfulness of the evidence. It is often hired evidence, and the central board coming down and not having local knowledge might be much more easily taken in by that sort of evidence. I suggest, therefore, that the central board should, where it feels that it would assist in getting at the real facts, have the power to say “We would like evidence on oath.” I move as an amendment to the new paragraph (iv) proposed by Mr. Friedlander:

That will give absolute discretion to the chairman to say whether he wants evidence on oath. I move the amendment, coupled with the deletion of the first paragraph of the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg.

The hon. member can vote against the first amendment; he cannot move to delete it now.

I am willing to accept the amendment on the lines which the hon. member desires, but I would like to ask him not to press the amendment in the form that he wants to press it now. I will arrange to move it at the report stage. I am not satisfied with the wording. If he will let his amendment drop now, I will bring in an amendment at the report stage to cover the point he wishes.

In view of what the Minister says, I ask leave to withdraw this particular amendment. May I make one final point in regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside). I don’t want to weary the Committee, but if the Minister feels that he cannot retire from the position he has taken up, I do ask him to consider one further possibility, and that is that there should be a final recourse or appeal to some outside impartial authority, in cases of conflict between the local authority and the Central Transportation Board. It is equally possible that either may be wrong. My submission is that there should be an appeal to an outside authority, say, either the Administrator or the Minister of the Interior, to say which of the two bodies is correct. I would suggest that either body might make representations to such impartial authority whoever it may be, and his ruling will be final.

With leave of the Committee, this amendment, proposed by Mr. Egeland, was withdrawn.

The first part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Warren was put and negatived and the amendment proposed by Mr. Heyns was put and agreed to.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment moved by Mr. Egeland in lines 12 to 15, page 6, was withdrawn.

I move—

Agreed to.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Friedlander and the second part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Warren were put and negatived and the amendment proposed by Mr. Burnside was put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

The new paragraph (v) proposed by Mr. Warren was put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—26:

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: F. C. Erasmus and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—45:

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Hayward, G. N.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Solomon, B.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I should like to move the following amendment:

1. (iii) by the addition at the end of paragraphic) of the following words:

and to add the following as a new subsection (2) to the Clause:

1. (2) Sub-section (2) of the said section 6 is hereby amended by the substitution for the word “Provided” of the following words:

The object of this amendment, as in the case of the previous amendment, which I moved to clause 4, is that the same conditions shal also be applicable to this clause. It means that if a person protests or lodges a frivolous protest against a certificate beinggranted, or against an application, the Local Road Transportation Board may demand that he shall deposit £100 out of which the Transportation Board may later on appropriate such amounts as it considers necessary to pay the costs of the protest. I want to say again that when such protests are made they very often come from large companies which only lodge those protests in order to cause trouble; they appoint a person of straw to lodge such a protest with the result that the person to whom the certificate is issued has a lot of expense imposed upon him, while the individual who has lodged the protest has no money or anything of value to cover the costs incurred. The applicant has already incurred certain expenses in order to obtain his certificate; he has already purchased means of conveyance to enable him to get a certificate, and this protest involves him in still further costs. There is also the possibility of an appeal. An appeal may be lodged under this clause, and in that event it will also apply in the same way as it does in regard to clause 4 where the amendment was passed that £100 had to be demanded from the man who objected, out of which money the Road Transportation Board took what it thought fit in order to cover the cost of the protest. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept this amendment.

I want to move the amendment standing in my name as follows:

1. (ii) by the addition of the following proviso at the end of paragraph (c): Provided that the cost of such certificates shall not exceed two shillings and sixpence each;

And then I want to move the following amendment which I also moved to the previous clause:

1. (2) The following new sub-section is hereby inserted after sub-section (2) of the said section 6—
2. (3) The local board shall not, in exercising the powers conferred upon it by sub-section (1), create or allow any vested rights or monopoly.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister will now agree to report progress and to ask for leave to sit again. It will take some time to explain these amendments.

No, we have to go on.

In regard to the first amendment I should like to expain the position. The people who undertake motor transportation work—I am not now talking of municipal councils and rich bus owners owners in the towns—are mostly poor people, any money is now being taken from them for those certificates which, to my mind, is very unfair, and which I think any reasonable person will regard as unfair. The cost of the certificate is £4 for a bus, £3 for a lorry and 10s. for exemption per month, or 5s. per trip. We cannot possibly agree to these taxes being imposed on those poor people. I have obtained this information from the latest report of the Central Road Transportation Board. Of that the Railways get £5,000. The Minister told us that the Railways got £80, but he forgot to add the amount of £4,820 10s. which should have been collected by the Board from the Railways, and if we add these amounts we find that the Railways altogether obtained about £5,000, which the poor lorry owners had to contribute out of their poverty. If the Railways want to be assisted, it does not give them the right to impose these taxes on these poor people. I say it is a scandal for a rich undertaking like the South African Railways, who are making millions of pounds profit per year, to take that amount of money from the poor lorry owners, who make a precarious living. If the Minister has any feeling at all for those poor people he will abolish this tax. It is a form of tax which is being imposed on them. The taxes imposed on those people have been increased from time to time. Last year there was an increase in the petrol tax although even before that there was a high tax on petrol. The tax on tyres and tubes has been increased, the cost of living has gone up, and those people are living from hand to mouth. The Minister, who is rich, and who an live in comfort, may laugh, but I tell him that if he goes to the platteland and sees what is going on there and the conditions under which the lorry drivers have to live he will sing a different tune. It is a disgrace to take this money from those people. It may perhaps be said that those people do not pay for their transportation. I want to point out that the provincial administration gives a subsidy for the maintenance of the roads, but that money which is given by the provincial administration is obtained from the people in the form of a tax. I have the details here to show what the amounts of the tax are, and as I told the Minister the other day, those taxes run from £13 for a lorry carrying 6,000 lbs. weight to £85 17s. for a lorry carrying 9,000 lbs. weight. The lorry owner pays the provincial administration for having the privilege of running over provincial roads to the extent of £85 per year. Now I ask you, if the lorry driver has to pay those high taxes, if he has to pay those taxes to the provincial administration, what right has the Government then to demand still further taxes from him? They are not only in the hands of the provincial administration to whom they have to pay taxes, but they are also in the hands of the Minister, and the Minister demands further taxes from them. I say that it is not fair to tax this one section of the population, a poor section of the population, with the object of assisting the Railways. And I say again that if the Railways want to wipe out that competition they should be prepared to pay for it. Where has one ever heard of a certain section of the population having to bear heavy burdens simply because the Railways want to enjoy certain rights. I have said that the Road Transportation Board has collected £35,000 from the lorry owners—it is nothing but a tax which those people are paying. If I want to buy a revenue stamp I can buy it for 2/6, and I am not going to be told that there is any necessity to ask for more than 2/6 for any of those certificates. If we look at the flourishing position in which the Railways are then we fail to understand why this amount should be taken from those poor people. For that reason I feel that we should add certain words here, “Provided the cost of the certificate shall not exceed 2/6.” I should also like to know from the Minister why he wants those lorry owners to pay this tax. The Central Road Transportation Board and the Local Road Transportation Boards have been established to protect the Railways and to see to it that there is no unnecessary competition with the Railways. They are there to protect the Railways and now they go further. They also want to protect private railways, and the poor lorry owners have to pay for the protection of those private railways. I know the conditions under which those people live, and I cannot see the justice of the Minister’s proposals. Many of those people find it difficult to pay for their vehicles. Petrol is more expensive; they are no longer allowed to carry petrol to the place where they need it, and all these things tend to make their position extremely difficult. They have been deprived of those privileges. They dare not do it any more, because any transport rider who wants to carry his own requirements for his own business is prevented from doing so. If he goes to Cape Town with his lorry he is not allowed to take a quantity of petrol with him. He has to put it on the Railways. He has been deprived of that right because it is something he needs for his business and he has to have it carried by the Railways.

With the concurrence of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) I wish to move an amendment which is purely onsequentia to the two amendments which the Committee accepted to clause 4. The effect is simply to apply the two amendments of the hon. member for Umbilo and myself in the preceding clause also to this clause. I move—

I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) in his plea on behalf of the lorry owner. If there is one section which is making a precarious and difficult living today it is the lorry drivers as a whole. We must not forget that the Government has placed them in a difficult position to-day in every possible respect. I am surprised that the hon. the Minister for Labour who sits over there does not use his influence with the Cabinet to stop these things when he hears how the rights of those people are being interfered with. I want to know whether he agrees with those things. He must not come along here, as he did in the case of the tear gas bombs, and say afterwards that he disapproved of it. This is the time for him to make his voice heard if he wants to stand up for these poor people. We are entitled to appeal to him, particularly in view of the attitude which he used to take up in the past when he sat on those benches and used to hold forth against the Government. He always gave us to understand that he pleaded the cause of the poor man. We do not hear any more of that to-day. I used to think that he was in earnest and really wanted to do something for the poor man. To-day I have to admit that I was wrong in my judgment, that I did not understand him correctly, and that he wanted to deceive people, and create the impression that he was pleading for the poor. To-day he does not stand up for the poor any more. Look at the position of those poor people working on our irrigation dams. We asked the Minister to do something for them. He promised that the matter would have his serious attention and that something would be done for them.

At 10.55 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House resumed in Committee on 24th February.