I move—

I do not think it is necessary to apologise for coming forward with a measure like this. The present Act, No. 16 of 1913, is out of date, and since the Act was passed the State forestry in South Africa has increased enormously; the amount of money invested in forestry both by the State and private individuals is very large, and with the permission of the House I will give a few figures to show that this amending legislation is necessary. The Crown forest estate is to-day 3,423,000 acres, or 1,618,347 morgen. The value of this estate is £15,300,000. Private forests run to 500,000 acres of wattle and 300,000 acres of eucalyptus. The value of exports from wattle plantations runs into £1,000,000 per annum, and the wood, mostly used for mining purposes, from wattle and eucalyptus plantations, can be put down at £1,500,000. The annual revenue from Crown forests to-day runs into £300,000, and it is expected it will soon reach the halfmillion mark. Then ten thousand daily-paid employees are working on Crown forests, and I think we can accept that at least the same number are employed on private forests. This Bill has been through Select Committee, a good many points were raised and objections were taken, and I think I may say, without fear of contradiction, that all those objections have been met, and generally to the satisfaction of the objectors. I think I can also say that we have a pretty good Bill before the House, and it seems to me it will not be necessary to spend too much time over it to-day. The Bill which is published to-day is the Bill which emerged from Select Committee with a few technical and consequential amendments. As the title of the Bill signifies, it deals, besides forestry proper, with veld burning, and also has provisions affecting veld, soil and water conservation. Perhaps I cannot do better than just run through a few of the main provisions. Section 1 repeals law and validates certain notices. Section 2 contains definitions, Section 3 deals with the application of the Act. This Act does not apply to native trust land, but applies to Crown forests on such land. A set of regulations has been drawn up in connection with native trust land, and the Forest Department administers these forests for the Trust. Any provision of this Act may, by proclamation, be made to apply to private forests at the request of the owners. Chapter 1 deals with the acquisition, tenure, demarcation and regulation of forests, trade in forest products and conservation of soil and water. Section 4 deals with the expropriation of land. The Governor-General may expropriate land for forests and certain other purposes, but the Minister will have to give three months’ notice of any expropriation, and failing agreement the amount of compensation will have to be determined by a board. Here we have followed the new mode of expropriation that was passed by this House the session before last, and which is much cheaper; that is to say, the magistrate and two other persons will be appointed as an arbitration board. Section 5 deals with the expropriation or suspension of owners’ rights for the purposes of reclamation; that is to say, besides the ordinary way of expropriation, the section lays down that owners’ rights can be suspended in an area which is proclaimed as a reclamation area. It deals with the manner in which such suspension shall take place, and the manner in which the owner can again be placed in possession, or the State will take over the ground, and at what price the State will take it over. If the owner is not satisfied he can insist that the ground shall be expropriated. Section 6 also lays down a new principle; that is that the Governor-General may proclaim certain trees or forests as protected from cutting. In case of such proclamation the owner will, of course, be entitled to damages, and the Bill provides for the payment of such loss. The Minister may authorise the cutting of such trees and timber as he sees fit. Section 7 deals further with compensation for loss due to proclamation under Section 5, which deals with the reclamation of land, and lays down what compensation shall be paid to an owner both in the case of suspension of rights and proclamation regarding the prohibition of cutting. The amount of the damage is to be determined by the board I have already spoken of. Then Section 8 deals with nature reserves and protection of forests. The Minister may set aside certain Crown forests as nature reserves, and therein he may prohibit hunting and the cutting of trees. Section 9 deals with the demarcation, alienation and withdrawal from demarcation of Crown forest land. Section 10 deals with servitudes over Crown forests and regulations in regard to servitudes. Section 11 deals with access to Crown forests for certain purposes, and Section 12 with the export, import, transport, sale, manufacture and grading of trees, timber, etc., and the use of trade names in respect thereof. Section 14 deals with regulations. Chapter 2 deals with offences and penalties. Chapter 3 is very important, because it deals with protection from fire and the regulation of veld burning. Generally, we have tried to follow the laws in the different provinces, but as hon. members will understand, it has been found necessary to go much further than the State has so far gone in protecting the country from veld fires. It lays down, for instance, that notice must be given of any proposal to clear a fire belt, and it also deals with the procedure for extinguishing fires. There are other clauses in this chapter which, I think, are reasonable, and which I hope will be accepted by the House. Section 22 deals with the wrongful possession of forest produce. Section 23 gives special powers to various officers, and Section 24 deals with the case of forest squatting. Section 25 deals with damage to forest produce. Negligence is presumed in case of damage by veld or forest fires until the contrary be proved. That is our law today.

Is that the law to-day?

That is the law to-day certainly in the Transvaal. I would not like to say in the Cape. There is nothing else of great importance in this Bill. There are provisions as to the control of roadside trees in relation to the post office and the divisional council, and then we have also the ordinary right of the Governor-General to make regulations. I think I have now covered most of the ground contained in this Act; that is to say, most of the provisions which are of any importance. I think the Bill is overdue, and I commend the second reading to the House.

The Bill which is now before the House differs widely from the Bill as it was originally introduced by the Minister. The Select Committee which dealt with the Bill succeeded in producing a number of very important amendments. So far as this side of the House is concerned, I can say hat the Bill in its original form was totally unacceptable on one cardinal point, but on that point the Minister and the Select Committee fortunately met our point of view. The objection which we originally had has to a large extent been removed in the Bill as it stands now. It is not yet quite as we want it, but none the less it is a great deal better than the old Bill which was introduced, and I take it that if the Minister’s Department is prepared to carry out this Bill sympathetically, and in a spirit of sound common sense, it should not cause many difficulties or much friction. Let us look at the principal amendments which have been introduced. The principal amendment is that this Bill protects the rights of private ownership to a greater extent against the demands of the State and of the Department of Forestry.

Private rights will be more efficiently protected under the provisions of this Bill than was the case in the Minister’s original Bill. To give an instance. In clause 5 of the original Bill the Minister had the right to suspend the rights of owners of natural forests or plantations for an indefinite period, without paying any compensation whatsoever. Assuming this were to be applied in that part of the country where I come from; there are many people there who own large natural forests, and in other parts of the country there are people who have planted large plantations at the expenditure of a considerable amount of money. Under the provisions of the original Bill, the Department could have said: “In the interest of the State it is desirable that you shall not work your natural forest,” or they could have said “We shall not allow you to work your plantation.” They could have done so without paying a penny by way of compensation to the owners for being deprived of their rights. This side of the House was strongly opposed to that particular provision. We would not have voted for it, and we would not have strongly objected to the Bill, but fortunately the Minister agreed to amend that important clause. As it stands now, it does not quite satisfy us, but it is a great improvement. The position now is that when a man owns a natural forest or a plantation, the Department of Forestry can still come along and say that it is not in the interest of the State that such a forest or plantation shall be thinned out. They reserve unto themselves the right to do so, but if they exercise that right then the Department has to do one of two things. The owner can come along and say “Expropriate my forest or my plantation and pay me compensation in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act.” That is one way. Or otherwise he can say to the Government, “Very well, but you have to pay me compensation during the time of the suspension of my rights.” He can say that they must expropriate his forest or his plantation and pay him what it is worth, or otherwise he can demand compensation pending such time as his rights are suspended. We still have some other objections, and we shall perhaps in Committee propose one or two amendments, but the Minister has met us on the cardinal point, and has made this Bill very much more acceptable. In regard to the question of expropriation, it very often happens that the State requires a bit of land for afforestation purposes, or a bit of land is required in order to combat soil erosion or drift sand, or for the purpose of protecting a catchment area or a water source. The law then gives the State the right to expropriate a bit of land of that kind, naturally against the payment of compensation. The original law, as it reads to-day, also contains certain provisions in that particular connection, but in this Bill now before the House the procedure of ex-propriation is greatly simplified and is made cheaper for the owners. If the State then wants to expropriate a bit of land for afforestation purposes or for the prevention of drift sand, or erosion, or something of that nature, the State can offer the man a price, and if the owner is not prepared to accept that he can ask for a Board to be appointed, as laid down in clause 4, consisting of a magistrate and two other people, one of whom is to be appointed by the Government, and the other by the owner. That is a very much cheaper way of settling a difference about the price of a bit of land when the State wants to expropriate the land. Looked at from that point of view, the Bill constitutes a great improvement. In a few respects the Bill goes considerably urther than the original Bill. I believe that the Minister did not mention that fact, but in this Bill municipalities—I believe that that is done for the first time—are also enabled to protect their forests against fire. In the past they were practically powerless. All they were able to do in the past was to avail themselves of the common law. That was very difficult. We have had evidence before us that it is very difficult and practically impossible for the municipalities to take action against people who negligently cause fires to break out in their forests, and to prosecute them and get them punished. This Bill will now enable the municipalities to protect their forests more effectively in future. In future their forest officials will have the same powers and rights as the foresters of the State. They will also have the powers of police officials, and they will be able to act more effectively. But there s something to which the Minister only referred in passing during his speech, as though it were not a very important thing, and that is something which makes even me a little scared of that clause. I am now referring to clause 27, which says that if a man is suspected of having lighted a fire and of having caused a fire, the principles of our ordinary law will no longer apply to him in future. According to the principles of common law, a man is innocent until he has been proved guilty, but this clause 27 casts the principle of our ordinary law overboard, and imposes the onus of proof not on he State, but on the accused person. He is taken to be guilty of negligence or carelessness unless he can prove the contrary. We in the Select Committee discussed this clause at some length. It is a dangerous principle. The Minister says that that is the position in the Transvaal, but I want to remind the Minister of the fact that that did not appear in his original Bill. It now appears for the first time in the Bill before the House. That principle of our common law is thrown overboard, but it is laid down that if a man is suspected of having fired the veld, or of having caused a forest fire, if there is reasonable grounds for thinking that he is the guilty person, he is considered to be guilty of negligence unless he can prove that he has not been careless or negligent. I eventually acquiesced by that clause because evidence was submitted to us to the effect that Municipal Councils like the City Council of Cape Town were powerless to deal with people who from pure negligence caused ires and destroyed tremendous natural forests and plantations, as a result of their negligence. We have often felt sorry for the Municipality of Cape Town. Mountain fires are continually occurring. They are the result of negligence, but it is apparently impossible for the municipality, under the law as it is at present, to catch and punish the guilty persons. Their task will be rendered easier in future, and that is why I voted for this clause. I consider that our forests in South Africa constitute a great national asset. They are not only a national asset, but, so far as Cape Town is concerned, the forests along the mountains constitute the beauty spots of Cape Town, and we have to assist in protecting them. That is the reason why I voted in favour of that dangerous principle. And now there is just one other point which I wish to emphasise. I think I have dealt with and explained the main principles of the Bill. I only want to say to the Minister that the success of this Bill will depend on the way it is carried out. How is the Department of Forestry going to carry out this Bill? If we look at the measure we see that tremendous powers are entrusted to the Department of Forestry. To mention just one instance. The forest officer is given all the powers of a policeman, but, even more than that, he can effect an arrest without a warrant. Under subclause (3) of clause 23 it is stated:

The forest officer is given powers such as the ordinary policeman has, but, in addition to that, he is given further powers. He can do what the ordinary police officer cannot do, and he can arrest a man without a warrant on suspicion only. He can—

He can—

The point I want to make here is that the forest officer can do this, and not merely the forest officer in the employ of the State, but the forest officer of a Municipal Council can do it if the Government is prepared to recognise him; that is essential. The Minister must be prepared to approve of his appointment, but once the Minister has recognised him he is given the powers of an ordinary member of the Police Force and still more. I only want to say this to the Minister, that many of these forest officers are young men. The Minister knows that himself. A young fellow of 17 or 18 years of age attends the training school at George. He attends there for two years, and after those two years he becomes a forest officer and goes out. These extensive powers are entrusted to such young and inexperienced men. This Bill will only succeed in avoiding friction if the Minister impresses upon these young forest officers that they must use the powers which they are going to be given under this Bill sympathetically and with common sense. These young men are suddenly placed in a position of power. Let me give the Minister an instance of what the forest officer can do. If I walk through a natural forest, to give an example, and I notice a nice bit of gum on a yellow-wood tree, and I take it and eat it, or I keep it to eat later on, then under clause 15 of this Bill that is regarded as a serious offence. Not as an ordinary offence, but as a serious offence, and the Minister, or the person authorised by him, can arrest me.

No, that is regarded as a minor offence.

It seems to me that the Minister does not know his own Bill. Let me quote clause 15 to the Minister. It says this:

Such a person is guilty of an offence. We are coming to that just now. But now let us loook at the definitions of this Bill. We find here that forest produce is defined as follows:

If I pick up a chip in a natural forest and the forest officer catches me he can prosecute me and I am guilty of an offence. And it goes still further—

There we have it—gum! I hope the Minister is now convinced that if I take a bit of gum in a natural forest and the forest officer notices me and he wants to be nasty, he can prosecute me and I am liable.

The Minister himself might have got into gaol.

Yes, the Minister might have landed there himself. If I do it, I am guilty—

A man who picks up a chip or takes sawdust into his hands, or who does anything of that kind, is liable to be punished as I have quoted. We realise in the Select Committee how difficult it was to draft a Bill to cover matters of this kind, and extraordinary powers often have to be given to a forest officer. But we want to ask the Minister to be goood enough to impress upon his forest officers that they must use the powers granted to them under this Bill with sympathy, knowledge and common sense. If that is done then I do not expect too much difficulty. To sum up the position. This Bill is an improvement on the previous Bill, seeing that it gives greater protection to the rights of private individuals towards the State. We tried to keep the balance even as between the interests of the State and the interest of land owners whose land may border on forests belonging to the State. In that respect this Bill is undoubtedly an improvement, and so far as I am concerned I feel more satisfied with the Bill now before the House than with the Bill which was submitted on a previous occasion.

The hon. member who has just sat down went into the matter very conscientiously, and he dealt particularly with the main points in this Bill in a very sensible manner. There is, however, another part of the Bill which he has not touched upon, and in respect of which I should like to say a few words. I am referring to clause 20. As hon. members will have noticed clause 20 deals with the question of grass fires. I am afraid of clause 20 as it stands here and my fear is based on my own experience. It is stated here that a man, a stock farmer, a man who owns a farm, if he wants to burn his grass, has to do one of two things. He either has to start half a mile within his boundary line, at the same time giving seven days’ notice to the adjoining owner, or he must take proper precautionary measures to prevent the fire from spreading. The existing law dates back to 1870. In the Republican days the law was twofold. The law differentiated between people who did not deliberately start grass fires, and people who did it deliberately. This latter part was amended in the Act of 1908. But the first portion of the law of 1870 is still in force, which goes to prove that it must have been a good law, otherwise it would not have remained unchanged for seventy years. It states that no one has the right to fire his veld if his fire may also set his neighbour’s veld on fire, and if he still fires his veld and his fire spreads to his neighbour’s land, then he may be fined from £5 to £20, or he may be imprisoned for a period of three months. The law states that the man was not allowed to fire his veld if it also endangered his neighbour’s veld. If the man still fired his veld he ran a further risk because in addition to the criminal prosecution a civil prosecution might be instituted and he might be sued for damages. The second portion of the law was changed in 1908. If a man who is not the legal owner of land, maliciously fires the veld, he may be fined £100 and imprisoned for a year. It will be noticed that the law still, as in the past, gives consideration to the two aspects of the matter. The man who fires his veld for the purpose of burning the grass for his own purposes, and who accidentlly sets his neighbour’s veld on fire is guilty, but is less culpable than the man who deliberately fires the veld. The proposal which is now before the House is much less drastic. It states that a man only has to see to it that the fire is stopped within half a mile inside his own boundary line, and he has to give at least seven days’ notice to his neighbour, or he has to take effective precautions. Let me give an instance of what happened to me last Winter, in order to show that this Bill does not go far enough. I burnt down an area more than half a mile from my boundary line. I took every possible precaution but suddenly a whirlwind sprung up and hon. members know what happens to a fire when a whirlwind springs up. The fire spread in all directions and I would much rather go and shoot khakis for six hours than fight a grass fire for six hours. I found that it was best to make a flank attack and I want to give that advice to my hon. friends on this side of the House. A frontal attack was useless. In spite of everything part of my neighbour’s veld was burnt. I realise the danger, and that being so I say that the provision made in this Bill is not effective. I therefore want to ask the Minister, or rather I would like to suggest, that clause 20 should be seriously considered from the point of view that the existing law has stood the test for seventy years, and I want to ask the Minister whether he does not think that it answers the purpose better than what is now being proposed in this Bill. Even under the existing law we have had instances of difficulties arising and of damage being done, and I definitely feel that clause 20 as it stands here does not afford effective protection to our stock farmers. In his speech on the second reading the Minister did not refer to this clause, and I want to appeal to him to consider the matter again. So far as we in the Transvaal are concerned the matter is a serious one. It may also be a serious matter for Natal and for the other provinces, but so far as we particularly are concerned it is a serious matter. If our grass is fired and a wind springs up the fire afterwards creates its own wind, and damage results.

I think the country is grateful for this measure. So far as I am concerned, it is a more important measure perhaps than the two or three soil erosion measures, because we live in a semi-arid country where there is very little timber, in fact in some parts of this country there is not even firewood. I am interested in this question but not from the same angle as the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). When we talk of afforestation, our minds immediately go to George, the Tsitsikama, and a few parts of Natal and the Transvaal, but I am looking at it from another angle, and that angle is the indigenous bush in the Northern Cape. The Northern Cape is one of the driest areas of the country, and we have a belt of bush there stretching from Vryburg right down to Prieska, some hundreds of miles in length and perhaps 60 or 70 miles in breadth. It is very valuable in this way, that it is indigenous and it is edible. It is not only shelter for stock in summer time, but it provides shelter in winter from the cold winds. The Vaal bush flowers in winter and the swarthak flowers in September. It is this belt of natural bush which I want to see protected. In the last few years I have seen thousands of loads of wood coming out of that bush, and being sold, I know also of farms in that dolomite area which have been almost denuded of bush. The time will come at this rate when the whole area will be denuded. I would like to see that bush protected, but according to this Bill, if you ask a man to protect his estate then he asks to be compensated— he wants to be compensated for destroying his own property. But we have got on to a worse stage now. For many years, perhaps for fifty years, that bush has been systematically chopped out by Europeans and now this chopping has got into the hands of natives. These natives in the Vaal River Reserves are allowed to chop as much as they like at the price of 10/- to 12/6 per load from certain farmers, and a load might be seven or 8,000 lbs. weight or more. These natives chop the wood and sell it. I had occasion recently to go to a certain part there, and over a small area of 26 miles I found 23 wood wagons, carrying anything from six to 9,000 lbs. of wood. I asked them why they were chopping wet wood. They replied: “Because we cannot find any more dry wood.” They are chopping out the indigenous wood to the detriment of the country. In time to come that whole area will become denuded of its bush. That is why I am so perturbed about the whole state of affairs, and now I find in the Bill that you will have to pay a man compensation if you ask him to protect this his own estate. It is ridiculous. We do not want to harm anyone. There was an agitation in those areas. Some people said that there are men who make a living out of this bush; they make their £5 or £6 per month. Of course, one has to allow these people to go on doing this thing to-day if they make a living out of it, but it is all wrong. Rather give them a pension. We want to protect the Kareeboom and the Olive Tree and the Camel Thorn. Let us protect these. It will cause no hardship. If we cannot teach the present generation to respect a tree, then let that generation die out, but let us teach the children of this generation to respect a tree, let us teach the children that a tree is something sacred and must not be destroyed. The Divisional Councils and Municipalities, and other authorities, are endeavouring to protect these trees to-day. Yet I find that the Minister in this Bill is providing for compensation to be paid to people for destroying their own estates. It is an unsatisfactory state of affairs so far as we are concerned. I hope that the people of this country will learn the truth of the old saying, that only God can make a tree. Not long ago a geologist came to this country; he made a great impression on my mind. He wrote a booklet in which he showed how this country was being denuded of its trees. He pointed out certain areas— you could see them plainly— as plainly as you can see Table mountain, and he said that in the course of years certain areas of this country would be so denuded that nothing would grow there. He showed rock surfaces where nothing will ever grow. These areas are going to become greater and greater, and he ended his booklet with these words: “Beware of Zimbabwe,” meaning, I presume, that in the course of years people would come to this country and say “Here people lived centuries ago. They did not know how to look after their country. They abused their own heritage. Only the ruins of a departed civilisation remain.” That is our trouble, we do not look after our own indigenous bush. We continue to destroy a most valuable asset. We want to leave this country better than we found it, and on that account I am sorry that this clause has not been tightened up.

So far as I am personally concerned I welcome this Bill. I see in this Bill the proof of the old saying: “If you do not succeed at first, try again.” Year after year I and other members have got up in this House and pleaded with the Government for something to be done in order to prevent these reckless mountain fires. Our suggestions, however, fell on deaf ears. Now the Minister has come along with this Bill which in one respect in any case will cope with that evil, and although I do not think that the Bill is perfect, I do welcome it. I suggested some time ago that the Government should tackle this matter, and that it should make arrangements for lectures to be given in respect of this important subject, so that the young children could be made to realise what it meant to our country, and so that we should be able to impress upon them the serious evils created by mountain fires. I do not find any provision to that effect in this Bill. In this connection I have in mind our mountain ranges which constitute our water sources, and I particularly have in mind the Swartberge which, like a main artery, runs through the Little Karroo to provide water to thousands of people and to stock. If Governments of the past ever made a mistake they made it when they allowed this valuable property to slip through the fingers of the State and get into the hands of private people. This Bill at last provides that if necessary the Government will be able again to expropriate that land so that natural conditions may be restored to what they originally were, and as the Creator intended them to be. I am very pleased the Government has done this, but a good deal of time will still have to pass before we shall be able to tackle the matter in the way it should be tackled. This applies not only to Ladismith and the Little Karroo but also to other districts which will benefit from that policy. That part of the country along the Langeberg on the Karroo side will also be benefited because mountain fires do take place there from time to time. I want to thank the Minister for at last having done what he is doing now, and I hope he will see to it that this Bill is applied in the right way.

I think the country generally and the Cape Peninsula in particular will welcome a measure of this kind. Here in the Cape Peninsula and the surrounding country we have very destructive fires, and we know that they are largely caused by carelessness. It is high time some measure should be taken to compel people to preserve the flora of this country. When we look at the Hottentot Holland range of mountains along the coast on the other side, we see the destructive effect of these fires, and people generally don’t realise how great that destruction is and what far-reaching effects it has on the future. These fires burn off the covering of the ground, which become so hot that the clouds, when they pass over, instead of depositing their moisture on that ground, pass on higher and the rains which we ought to get are not precipitated on our country. The consequence is, as statistics show us, that the rainfall is, if anything, gradually getting less and less, and some of our springs do not yield the amount of water that they used to. A great deal of this trouble can be attributed to the loss of our natural vegetation by this indiscriminate burning. Then, sir, there is a provision in Clause 6 which I hope will be enforced and tightened up. I hope that this clause means that some of our trees in our beauty spots here will be protected. We have a municipality whose officials are not always partial to trees and is liable to have them cut down. I hope this provision will enable somebody, or some authority, to take action in this matter. There happens to be a very fine growth of trees in the Rondebosch area. One of our beauty spots is round about Camp Ground at Rondebosch, and the trees there are gradually disappearing. It seems that whenever there is an opportunity, I don’t say on the part of the municipality always, trees are cut down for various reasons, with the result that bit by bit our beauty spots are gradually disappearing. If this provision can be made effective it will be of very great public importance, and I hope the Minister, if it is necessary to have any amendment, will see that this provision is strengthened when the Bill comes before the Committee. I hope the most stringent measures will be enforced to prevent indiscriminate veld fires being started. These fires get out of hand in no time and do very great destruction to the bush and flowers, the loss of which is irreparable. I hope some steps will be taken to tighten up this provision relating to the starting of fires on farms. I know some of my farmer friends do not agree with me, because they support the burning of veld. I doubt whether this burning is of the value to them that they think, and I am inclined to think that if much of this burning is stopped they will be compensated by the increased rainfall which will result from the natural growth of vegetation. I hope that not only will this Bill go through, but that if anything it will be strengthened. I should like to add my congratulations to the Government on the step which they have taken to preserve the flora of our country.

I also want to admit that this Bill should have been introduced long ago. I feel there is nobody in this House who does not realise that the most drastic steps should be taken for the protection of our forests and veld, and also our water sources. Seeing that steps are now being taken in this Bill for the protection of these things, I am sorry that the Bill is not more comprehensive in certain respects. This Bill may rightly be called the Forest and Veld Conservation Bill. Although provision is also made in the measure for soil and water conservation, its main object none the less is that of forest and veld conservation. I should have liked to have seen better and more comprehensive provision made for steps to ensure soil and water conservation in the country. It is true that as the Bill is now drafted there will be more opportunity for water conservation, and mountain sides and catchment areas will henceforth be better protected against fires, but I would have liked to have seen more comprehensive steps taken in order to make mountain fires quite impossible. In that connection I want to remind the Minister of a suggestion which I made on a previous occasion, namely, that the Government should take steps to expropriate mountain ranges which constitute the origin of the water sources in connection with which irrigation schemes are run at the foot of the mountains. I should like to have seen the Government being given power in this Bill not only to expropriate mountains, but I should also have liked the Government to have been compelled by the appointment of guards, or by the formation of mountain fire clubs, to cope more effectively with mountain fires. I have on previous occasions already pleaded for the expropriation of mountains by the State, and in view of the fact that provision is now being made in this Bill for expropriation, I trust the Government will make use of those powers. I hope also, however, that the Government, if at all possible, will fence off the mountains, and thus prevent people going into the mountains and perhaps deliberately starting fires.

Where is that power of expropriation?

The Government takes that power unto itself in this Bill. A provision to that effect appears in the Bill, but I should have liked to have seen provision so that the Government would be obliged to fence the mountain ranges which it might be buying, so that they would be better protected, but as the Government is not making such provision, mountain fire clubs should be established in the same way as Jackal Clubs are established to-day, and the members of these clubs should be compelled, if a fire breaks out, to render assistance in putting out that fire. That would contribute greatly to an end being put to mountain fires, and if provision were made in that manner for water conservation the Bill would be even more acceptable. As provision is being made in this measure for the expropriation of certain land and for more effective action being taken, and for better conservation of forest, veld and water, I should like to make a few remarks in connection with a certain clause which concerns the expropriation of ground and which relates to disputes which may arise in regard to compensation which has to be paid in case of expropriation. According to the provisions in the Bill, if a dispute arises about the price of expropriation, a Board may be appointed, and that Board will consist of the magistrate and one person appointed by the Minister and one nominated by the owner. I want to ask the Minister to consider the question whether a Board composed in that way is really the most desirable body to deal with a matter of that kind. By all means let the magistrate serve on a Board like that, but do not let the Minister appoint the other person. Would it not be better if in the Cape, where we have divisional councils, the third person were nominated by the divisional council, and if, in areas where there are no divisional councils, the third person were nominated by the Land Board member? It would otherwise mean that on every occasion when a Board of that kind is set up, the owner in actual fact would only nominate one person and the Government two, and a Board like that could hardly be looked upon as an impartial body. Then I want to say a few words in regard to the definition of “fire belts.” Provision is made here under which certain obligations can be imposed on joint owners for fire belts to be made, and in that connection it is laid down that each party shall pay his own costs. Now it may so happen that the Department of Forestry has forests in certain areas, which it is anxious to protect by the making of fire belts. The adjoining farmer is not greatly concerned in that particular matter; his veld may be comparatively valueless, but now he is notified by the Department that a fire belt has to be constructed. This may cost him a lot of money, and for that reason I want to suggest that in cases of that kind the expense should not be borne by both parties, but that it should be borne by the Government alone. It is unfair that where such protection is afforded to forests or mountain ranges the one farmer whose land adjoins the Government land should be the only one to share in the expense of the fire belt, although all the farms at the foot of the mountain have an interest in the matter. It is unfair that only one man should have to bear half of the cost of the fire belt, and I feel that it is no more than reasonable that in a case of that kind the cost should be borne by the Government. In regard to clause 21, I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has said, that in this Bill large powers are entrusted to any person who discovers a fire in the open air, a fire which endangers life and property. Such a person has the right to instruct anyone to come and assist in putting out the fire. He has the right to remove a tree or anything else with a view to stopping the fire. One feels that if one entrusts such arbitrary powers to an individual, then the person or the individual to whom such powers are entrusted should be a responsible person, but under the provisions of this clause those powers can be entrusted to any person, however irresponsible they may be. I do not think that just anyone should have such powers entrusted to him, and I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to define more specifically what kind of people will have the right to act in such circumstances. Then I want to say a few words about clause 27. As the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has already indicated, a very drastic change is being introduced here into our common law, because it is laid down hat wherever a fire has broken out any individual who may be suspected of being responsible for the fire is now practically considered to be guilty of having started that fire until such time as he can prove that he has not done so. This is a very drastic step, but none the less, like the hon. member for George, I have come to the conclusion that I must be prepared to give this change a trial. It has worried me a great deal, and I was very nervous of granting such powers, but after careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that in view of the fact that veld and mountain fires are increasing to such a large extent and are causing so much damage, we must risk accepting a provision of this kind. If it appears later that this provision is being abused, we may have to take further steps. But at the moment I am prepared even to approve of this drastic change in the hope that it will make it possible for the evil to be more effectively combated in the future. Generally speaking, therefore, I support this Bill, and I only want to ask the Minister to give his attention and consideration to the points I have raised, and to see whether it is not possible to introduce certain amendments.

It seems that the whole House welcomes this Bill. I agree with the hon. member for George that this Bill is a considerable improvement on the original one which was placed before the Select Committee last year. Our Select Committee did its best to make it as easy as possible and as effective as possible, and I want to add that, although I was unable to agree with everything, for the sake of co-operation I had to give a little here and take a little there. We worked together and met each other from both sides. I want to say, however, that there are provisions in this Bill which will make it incumbent upon the Minister to come before this House again at a not far distant date in order to get the Act amended. When one talks about veld fires one meets with more authorities on that subject than one finds on any other subject in the country. Every man who lives on the plains far away and who has never yet lived anywhere near a mountain, regards himself as an authority on the subject of mountain fires, and he tells casually that mountain fires must be stopped, and that an end should be put to them. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) told us just now that mountain fires were tremendously on the increase. I just want to tell him that I have grown up at the foot of a mountain, and I have lived there all my life, and there are no more mountain fires to-day than there were in the past, when I was a youngster. Nor can one get away from the fact that mountain fires in certain parts of the country are a necessity so far as certain farms are concerned. There are mountains which are of the greatest importance for purposes of stock grazing, and they keep the stock of those farms alive from year to year, but the man who has his stock on a farm lower down is dependent on mountain fires for grazing. It is to his benefit too that the water shall be conserved, but I do feel that the danger of mountain fires has been somewhat exaggerated. In my area the water has not decreased in the last fifty years in spite of the fact that every year part of the mountain is burnt out. I should like to have seen a provision in this Bill, in view of the different character of different parts of the country, that the provisions or certain provisions of the Bill shall not apply in the same form to all parts of the country. Take the South-western districts. If it were possible I should like to have a clause in this Bill prohibiting mountain fires during a certain part of the year; for instance, in December, January and February. If we had a provision of that kind mountain fires would not be able to cause a great deal of damage so far as our part of the country is concerned. There is a clause in this Bill dealing with expropriation, and the public are very pleased that reasonable provision is now being made for expropriation in order to promote the conservation of water. Along the Langeberge and the River Sonder End mountains, near the top part of every farm there is an extensive area where the water comes down to serve the farmers lower down. If the Minister should now decide to expropriate those mountains as a whole he would be placing a tremendous burden on his own shoulders, a burden which would be a great deal heavier than if that expropriation had been decided upon the past, and that burden would be created by the fire belts which would have to be constructed between the farms below the mountain and the mountain above those farms.

And what if the mountain above the fire belt catches fire?

I am coming to that. I just want to tell the House how a mountain fire can start. As the hon. member knows, the mountains have foothills which extend for many miles and which give valuable pasturage if they can be burnt. If those foothills are burnt and the fire spreads to the end of the foothill, then there is a danger that it will spread beyond the mountains and will burn out the whole of the mountain side. Now I want to say that in the way people set to work in the past, so that large areas of the mountains were burnt out, very little harm was done, but last year we noticed in parts of the Worcester district how much harm can be done by a fire. A large area of the mountains was rendered practically useless for grazing purposes, or for any other purpose; the farmers have succeeded in keeping fires away from that mountain for the past twenty-five years, but on one occasion a fire was started there. That fire got right into the mountain, and the whole area from De Wet Station to Nuyrivier was burnt bare—it was turned into a desert. I am only mentioning this to show what can happen if a mountain is not burnt out from year to year. Whatever precautions are taken a fire will start at some time or another—no one can prevent it. After eight or ten years fire will break out, and everything is burnt bare, while if parts of the mountain are burnt out from year to year it is impossible for the fire to become as serious as it did on this particular occasion. Fires also break out through lightning setting the veld ablaze. I have seen this happen on several occasions in my experience. In the areas near George and Mossel Bay there are quite a number of farmers who have to burn their veld, where the ground is level, regularly, and if they have to keep the fire out of the mountains it will not be possible for them to do so. If they do not fire their veld from time to time they will not be able to carry on. We are all in favour of sensible provision being made, but conditions vary in different parts of the country. The Minister is now making provision for expropriation in catchment areas, and he is making provision for the protection of catchment areas. Personally I have no objection to that being done, but I want to ask the Minister to be good enough to have good fire belts made at the expense of the State. In Select Committee we discussed this matter, too. We did not divide on these questions, but we co-operated in a good spirit, and we discussed these questions thoroughly, but as the hon. member for Oudtshoorn also said, where a fire belt has to be made between a Government farm and the farm of a private owner, it is often unfair to make the farmer pay half the cost. It should be paid for by the taxpayers. I also want to say a few words about the powers that are given to people in connection with extinguishing of fires. We are prepared to go further in regard to giving powers to officials of the Department of Forestry. I said in Select Committee, and I say it again, that the experience we have had of officials of the Department has been very good, and we are not afraid of giving them those powers; but I am nervous of granting those powers to my rich neighbour who lives next door to me, and who perhaps has a long fire belt on my boundary line. I want to say again that there are many people who regard themselves as authorities on the question of mountain fires, but who know as little about them as the baboons one finds in the mountains, and those people as a rule are the ones who have most to say, and I do not expect any sympathy from them. They would like to make the Act as drastic as possible, and they would like to prevent the farmer burning any of his veld because they do not understand the position at all. I want to repeat that the forest officers who have a knowledge of these things understand the position of the farmers, and I am prepared to give them far-reaching powers. I do not blame the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) for pleading on behalf of the Swartberge. He lives in the Karroo, and when his veld is burnt some of the good and useful bush is killed off, and all he has left is the poor kraal bush, but so far as we are concerned a veld fire does a lot of good. It destroys the bad bush and it gives us good grazing. We must look at the matter from the other side as well.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 5th February.

I move—

The purpose of this Bill is first to protect the consumer against fraudulent misrepresentation of goods, and to ensure that the customer gets what he thinks he is getting. It is also designed to protect the honest trader against the dishonest trader, and to protect the producer against fraudulent substitution for his products by less valuable products. For example, I give you wool. Traders very often state an article is made of wool when it is nothing of the kind. Again, it is said that certain furniture is made of stinkwood when there is no stinkwood at all in its composition. Provision is also made in the Bill to prevent clever, slim manufacturers in some instances from using the names of towns which are noted for the manufacture of a special kind of product. For instance, it is known that certain manufacturers are even setting up places in other countries bearing well-known town names such as Sheffield in order to be able to say that certain goods are made there. At present there is no single Act for the Union as a whole. It is true there is one each in the Cape, in Natal and in the Transvaal, but they are not suitable for commercial use to-day, and the result is that these Acts are practically a dead letter. In the Free State there is no Act at all. I will just take the various clauses of the Bill, and I think that will explain the mechanism by which we propose arriving at our object. The definitions, you will see, are wide, and they are necessarily so. Section 2 deals with the position when a person will be deemed to have applied a particular description or trade mark. Sections 3, 4 and 5 provide for the administration of the Act, and in the administration of the Act the Department of Assize is concerned, so there will be no increased expenditure. Section 6 creates an offence, and prohibits, amongst other things, the false application of a trade mark or trade description, the forgery of a trade mark and the application of a false trade description to goods. Provision is made co exempt those persons who, in the normal course of their business, use such articles. Then, clause 8 provides that foreign goods which bear the mark or name of a Union manufacturer must bear an indication of their origin. The object of this section is to assist these people who believe in producing locally manufactured goods, rather than imported goods. Such people sometimes labour under the impression that if goods bear the name or the mark of a Union manufacturer, they must necessarily be of South African manufacture. That, however, is not always the case. Section 9 prohibits the sale or distribution in the Union of all goods bearing a mark in English or Afrikaans unless such goods also bear an indication of their origin. This really is necessary, because very often if the goods bear a description in English or Afrikaans, but more particularly in English, the public as a rule take it for granted that these goods are produced either in the Union or in England, or in other parts of the Commonwealth, or in the United States, and very often these descriptions of goods are used by foreign countries to mislead the people. I think the other clauses more or less explain themselves; they are very clear. There is another clause hon. members will notice preventing the use of certain names. For instance, prohibiting the use of the name of Royalty, but particularly preventing the use of names of former Presidents of the Transvaal or of the Free State. I think it will be remembered that a few years ago there was a great deal of annoyance caused to many people by a certain firm labelling its brandy “Oom Paul” brandy. Then there is protection for such names as Escom, Iscor, etc., by which certain industrialists are known. Then you see a section dealing with the use of bottles in which are sold the manufacture of certain firms. For instance, soda water bottles are sold by certain firms, and they put their names on those bottles. Milk is sold by certain firms in milk bottles on which they put their names, and it has been found that certain bright people take these bottles and fill them with their own products, and sell that product as a genuine article. In addition, these bottles have frequently been used in a very dangerous way, and then sent back to the manufacturer. For instance, manufacturers have had bottles sent back to them which have been used for ant poison, and these provisions are made to prevent these bottles from being used for illicit purposes, or being used for purposes dangerous to the public health. The last section provides that the Act shall not come into force until at least six months after the Bill has passed the House. That is done so as to give ample time to manufacturers to prepare for the conditions under which goods can be sold. It may even be necessary to give a longer period than six months if we find that some conditions will take a long time to carry out. I think we shall find that the House will approve of the general principles of this Bill. In fact, I am certain they will, because it is so essentially necessary first of all for the commercial interests of the country, and, secondly, for the protection of the consumer. I may also say that the Wool Council have particularly asked for a Bill of this nature so as to protect the wool producer. Within my own knowledge I know of several cases of goods being marked “all wool” where I have the greatest difficulty not to believe that they are a fraud. But, as I say, I think the House will approve of the principle of this Bill, and when we come to Committee stage the criticism of members will probably be shown with regard to any special phases of the Bill.

Before I speak on the principle contained in this Bill I want to make some general remarks about the introduction of this measure. This Bill was introduced on Friday by the Minister. It was also before the House and before the Senate last year. I have not had the opportunity, seeing that it is only two days after the introduction of the Bill that we have to discuss it, of comparing this Bill with the one which was introduced last year—but I understand, and I am therefore speaking subject to correction, that important changes have been made in many respects in this Bill as compared with the one introduced last year. But if I am correct then it is clear that the hon. the Minister has not treated this House quite fairly because he only introduced the new Bill last Friday, and he expects us at this early stage to deal with the second reading. It would have been fairer if he had given hon. members a little more time to study the Bill. Now, as regards the Bill, or the principle of the Bill, I think I can say that it will meet with the general approval of this side of the House. I must put it this way, that I believe I can say that because of the way in which this Bill has been introduced we have not had sufficient time to thoroughly consider it. It has been felt for a long time that greater protection should be given not only to the public, but also to our merchants and manufacturers against the fraudulent representation of articles and the manner in which frauds are committed when certain people try to pass off their own goods as having been manufactured by certain well known manufacturers. That fraud has been carried on by a certain section of our traders, and it was high time for us to have legislation of this kind introduced in order to protect the public, and in order also to protect the honest manufacturer and merchant. In regard to the definitions there is one on which I want to say a few words. Definition No. 3 deals with false trade descriptions. The Minister in his speech on the second reading motion referred to instances of false description, such as, for instance, an article described as being composed entirely of wool, while in actual fact it was not made of wool. If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest that the hon. Minister of Commerce and Industries should have a talk with his colleague, the Minister of Public Health, and ask him to see whether this principle cannot also be applied to the sale of patent medicines. I do not know whether a question of this kind can be brought in under this Bill. But it has become a crying scandal in other countries, and also in South Africa—namely the way in which patent medicines are sold to the public. The labels on those medicines say that the medicines will cure such and such a disease, although in actual fact there is no truth in those claims. But besides that those medicines may do great injury to the health of the purchaser. I do not know whether it can be brought under this Bill, but I want to suggest that this is something which should be brought to the notice of the Minister of Public Health. Then I come to the more important provisions of the Bill on which I want to say a few words, and my remarks will apply particularly to the provision contained in Clauses 8, 9, 10 and 11. In those clauses certain provisions are made in which it is laid down that certain commodities if they are sent from overseas shall bear a description showing that they are imported goods. Clause 8, inter alia, says this—

It is pretended that the goods are made or manufactured by manufacturers in the Union while they come from overseas, and that is prohibited under this clause. There are no serious objections to that. Clause 9 goes further. It is stated in Clause 9—

In other words, even though there is no attempt on the part of the local trader to pretend that he has manufactured those goods, if the goods come from America or from another country, if in the English language there is only a description of the goods, then it is also necessary in that case to display on those goods the name of the country from which such goods are imported. Then that same principle goes further in Clauses 10 and 11 which still further extend it. Clause 10 gives the Minister certain powers—

Among those requirements is that the name of the country from which the goods are imported is clearly stated. Clause 11 goes a little further in the same direction. There the Minister is given the power to prohibit certain classes of goods entering South Africa, but it goes further and it says that the Minister can prohibit the importation of such goods, if the Minister after such investigation as he may think fit, is satisfied—

1. (a) that by reason of the fact that a considerable part of the labour expended in the manufacture of any goods of any class or description which are sold or which it is proposed to sell in the Union, has been expended in any particular country, or elsewhere than in any particular country; or
2. (b) that by reason of the fact that a considerable part of the material of which any goods of any class or description which are sold or which it is proposed to sell in the Union, are composed, has been produced in any particular country, or elsewhere than in any particular country.

If the Minister thinks it desirable to do so, he can prohibit such importation. As I understand the position it amounts to this, that not only can the Minister say that goods from a certain country or countries shall not be allowed to come here, but he can even go so far as to say that goods shall be only imported from a certain country. It seems to me that the Minister is asking for very great powers here. I admit that there is a good deal to be said for the principle that in certain cases the country of origin shall be mentioned. We can remember an instance of shaving brushes which were imported, I believe, from Japan, and which were later on found to be infected with Anthrax. It was naturally necessary to prohibit the importation of shaving brushes from Japan, but what I feel is that there is a certain danger—I am not going to say in the case of the present Minister—that a future Minister may possibly abuse this power to exercise a boycott against some country or other. There is defintely that danger. It was not so very long ago—it did not come from the side of the Government—that a certain movement was set afoot, and a very strong movement at that, to stop the importation of American motor cars and agricultural machinery into South Africa. A strong movement has been started. We can well imagine that no such attempt will be made to-day, because to-day America has to help Britain and the Empire to win the war, but those same people who to-day talk with so much praise and love of the United States, were busy a few years ago with an active boycott against the importation of American goods. There is that danger. I do not know whether this clause can be amended in such a way as to remove that danger. But it is necessary to say here on the second reading of the Bill that that danger does exist and that this clause may be used not only in order to apply a boycott against a particular country, but where the words appear “Otherwise than in a particular country,” this clause can also be used in order to favour a particular country as regards the importation of goods. Then I also want to refer very briefly to clause 16. In this clause the following provision is made—

I should like to know from the Minister whether that does not go too far? The man who sells the article has to guarantee that the trade mark, etc., is genuine. A small shopkeper in a small platteland town sells an article and if the trade mark on that article is a false one he may be prosecuted because under this clause the person who sells the article has to guarantee the mark being genuine. That individual can get into difficulties, especially if we read this clause together with clause 18 where the onus of proof is imposed on the individual who sells the article. Clause 18 (a) reads as follows—

It will therefore be seen that just as in the case of the previous Bill the onus of proof is placed on the accused person, an idea which conflicts with the principle of our law, that a man is considered to be innocent until he is proved guilty. We are here interfering with a fixed principle of the Dutch Roman Law and also of English Law. I should therefore like to know from the Minister exactly how he interprets that clause, and whether he does not think that it goes too far. Generally speaking I say that I believe that there is no objection to the principle of this Bill, but I hope the Minister will not expect us to proceed with the Committee stage to-day, because we require time to study the Bill as it has only just come into our hands. We are prepared to accept its general principle.

I am very glad indeed to see this Bill. It is a Bill which the country has wanted for a long period of years, and from the remarks of the Minister in his general review of the Bill I have indeed very little criticism to offer. This Bill is really bringing up to date an old Act. This Bill is founded on everything contained in the Act of 1916. For a long period of years there have been fraudulent practices in this connection, and as far as I read the provisions now made, I think in a great measure these fraudulent practices will be met and dealt with by the provisions of this Bill. There is another question dealt with—the change and development of our manufacturing industry, and the reconditioning and manufacturing so far as the future is concerned. Of course, reconditioning and things of that kind are totally different from what they have been, and I think it is wise to have these provisions made for reconditioning and manufacturing, in the way they are contained in this Bill. There is one point of great importance which I want to refer to. In section 9 it is provided that anyone in advertising a certain article uses the English or Dutch languages may be called upon by the Minister to show the country of origin of the article he is selling. That is evidently part of the proof that will be required. I had always understood that when the Merchandised Mark Act came along it would include provision in regard to the country of origin. I know the Bill will meet with tremendous difficulty unless provision is made for the country of origin being stamped on the goods.

Look at clause 8.

Yes, I have seen that. The Minister spoke of fraudulent practices n trade. One must admit that they do occur occasionally—not very often, I hope, but the biggest fraudulent practice which does exist in this country to-day is that goods are sold as a production of another country instead of the country from which they actually come, and there is no possibility of finding that out, and particularly in these days when the very life of a country depends on its ability to export its goods. That may apply particularly to textiles, but it applies to many other products as well, and we know that goods are sent into South Africa without any protection being afforded to the people who buy them. There is no provision to deal with that in this Bill, and that is where I am rather disappointed about this measure.

Can you suggest any amendment?

Yes, I would suggest this amendment, that the country of origin should be stamped on every article, and every container before such article is allowed to enter South Africa. Goods should not be admitted into this country unless they bear the name of the country of origin. That will go a long way towards making this Bill workable; in fact, it will make it almost a perfect Bill, and it is the very thing which the country has been looking forward to for a long time. I would go further, and I would say that it is something which South Africa has been shouting for. Furthermore, I would not export anything made in South Africa unless you had “made in South Africa” put on it. These are the only two points that I want to raise in connection with the Bill. I think if these things could be done it would go a long way towards avoiding these malpractices which the Minister has referred to —these dishonest practices. Because they have been dishonest practices; people cannot see where goods come from and what they are buying. Very large quantities of goods are sold to-day, coming from other countries— goods which are accepted as British goods or other high-class countries, when they are not. We should certainly have the country of origin shown. Also I say again no goods should leave this country without their bearing an inscription that they are “made in South Africa,” because South Africa can stand on its own in this regard to-day. I have studied the Bill, and I think it is a good Bill which supplies a great need. If the Minister could see his way to put in these two suggestions which I have made, he would render a very great service indeed to the country and the business community in general.

I just want to add my support to the Bill in its general principle. I think it is a Bill which is very long overdue. For many years we have suffered because of the difficulty of dealing with matters such as are now dealt with in the Bill, in order to protect the public so that they shall get in the main the goods which they want to get, and which they think they are getting. I would like to add my support to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) in his representations that the time has come when the country of origin should be stamped on all goods exposed for sale. I am particularly anxious to support him when he says we should see that “made in South Africa” is stamped on South African goods. I know there is considerable difference of opinion in manufacturing circles as to the advisability of this particular measure. It used to be said in the past that when South African manufacture was more or less in its infancy that there was a great prejudice against South African manufactured goods, and it would have a detrimental effect and prejudice the sale of such goods if the fact that they were made in South Africa were definitely stamped on them. I maintain that those days, if they ever existed, are long past. I think this country has not only every right to be proud of the quality of the goods that it manufactures, but everybody in the country should be equally proud of being-able to make use of South African manufactured goods. I think the time has come when the words “made in South Africa” may be taken as a guarantee of quality, and it will be a very great pity indeed if, now that we are dealing with merchandise marks, the opportunity is lost of seeing that South African goods are marked with the country of origin. I hope the Minister will agree in the Committee stage to accept an amendment making this possible. It should not be beyond the bounds of possibility to frame such an amendment. It would not only be an improvement on the Bill, but a great advantage to South African manufacturers as a whole. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) in his criticism of clause 16. I do not think I have ever agreed with him before, and it is nice to be able to do so now. I think this clause might have so wide an interpretation that people in up-country stores may find it very difficult indeed, and they may quite innocently come under the ban of this particular provision. The onus, apparently, is upon them to prove innocence, and I do think it may bear a little hardly on them. There may be one or two other instances where we may find, in practice, there will be difficulty in carrying out the clauses of the Bill, but, as the Minister has told us, we have six months at least in which to clear up any difficulties of that nature. I think that may be sufficient to allow these things to be straightened out. Generally speaking, I welcome this Bill, which I think is long overdue. I think it can be strengthened in one or two instances, and I hope the Minister will endeavour to meet suggestions for improving the Bill.

I think I should apologise to the House for not having given the reasons why the other Bill was not proceeded with. The reason was that I brought into this Bill a certain clause regarding bottles, and I was advised by the officials of the House that it would be better to bring in a new Bill rather than to change the title of the old Bill, send it back to the Senate, and bring it back to the House, and so on. I took that advice, and brought in this new Bill. That is the reason, and I should have explained that when I moved the second reading.

Could you not have published the Bill a bit earlier?

Unfortunately the law advisers were so busy looking after very important matters, that I could not get the Bill before. The next point the hon. member made was that the Bill ought to control what one may call fraudulent advertisement of patent medicines. Well, I took that matter up, but I was advised that that subject was so different in many respects that it should be the object of a separate Bill. I feel quite sure that my colleague, the Minister of Public Health, will have much greater pleasure in bringing a Bill in than I shall. For the time being I have to leave the question of fraudulent statements in advertisements regarding patent medicines out of my Bill, on the advice of the law advisers. The hon. member has called my attention to Clause 8, but he really reads it in a different sense to that intended. His point was, I think, that it almost looks as if we were inducing people to have goods made outside this country and put them on the market as South African. But the whole idea of this paragraph is diametrically opposed to that. We find that there are goods which are manufactured outside the Union and are imported into the Union.

Your interpreter let you down.

Well, perhaps the hon. gentleman will let me have his interpretation. Then his objection to Clause 11 is that it might lead to a boycott, either in one direction or the other, a boycott of goods from a certain country. Well, it is quite true that this Bill can be used very effectively by the people of the Union if they decide that they don’t want goods from a certain country for any given reason, such as wage conditions being unsatisfactory, or that the particular country is inimical to South Africa. There is no doubt the possibility that the labelling of an article as the manufacture of that country will not add to its chance of getting sold, and I think that should be so. As I told the House when I spoke last, there are some countries that have started using the names of towns and have established townships with such names as Sheffield, so that they can sell goods as having been made in Sheffield. It is a very clear device, but I do not think the South African public are going to allow themselves to be misled by any subterfuges of that kind. My feeling is that you have to take the risk of a boycott, or forego the Bill. I am prepared to take the risk of a boycott from one side or the other. I think it was Clause 16 that the hon. member referred to as very severe, and I think the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Hirsch) referred to the same clause. I agree that it is severe, and I would be willing to soften it if I felt that I could soften it without letting the criminal out. On the other hand, you have to remember that magistrates do not always give a man the extreme penalty. He is the judge as to whether a retailer deliberately and fraudulently misled the buyer, or whether it was pure mischance or want of knowledge, and I do not think it is likely to lead to any very serious miscarriage of justice. Then you have to remember that it is always the last seller who gets into trouble, it is the retailer who always or very generally stands the risk of misleading his customer. It is the customer you want to protect, and I don’t think we are any more severe than we are to-day in many other forms of legislation. I cannot see the magistrate treating a little retailer unfairly who simply, by invertence, has sold goods with the trade mark which is fraudulent. With regard to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) I think the Minister might have the right of prescribing the method of marking goods and coverings of everything that is imported. It was suggested to me while I was dealing with this Bill, we should say—if I may talk technicalities to a colleague—that we should say every ten yards of dress material should bear on the selvidge the source of origin. Well, if we were the biggest buyers in the world we might be able to insist on manufacturers doing that, but the manufacturer over in Europe would say “Well, I am not going to alter my arrangement to please the small orders I get from South Africa.” It has to be dealt with very carefully, and I think it might be dealt with by allowing the Minister the power to prescribe wat conditions should be imposed. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) asked me to take power to compel the South African manufacturer to mark his goods with the country of origin. Well at present, I am trying to get the South African manufacturer to export anything. Up to the present he has been content with his contracted home market, and it has been most difficult to get him to look over the Belgian Congo border and see markets up there. I quite agree with what has been said, our goods, take them by and large, are as good in quality and as sound as any other goods that are produced. There is no reason whatever for our manufacturer to be ashamed of his goods, in fact he should be just the opposite, and I hope I shall persuade them to export more of their goods, particularly to the North, and then we shall find that they themselves will put on the words “made in South Africa.” Surely these manufacturers have sufficient business acumen to put on their own goods where they are made, that is for the local market. I think as regards export, the Minister might be given the power, if necessary, to compel manufacturers to put on the country of origin, so that in any case in a few years we also may have a place in the sun. I am very glad the Bill has been received so well, and when we come to Committee I shall be only too willing to consider any amendment which will improve the Bill and make more easy of attainment its objects.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 5th February.

I move—

This Bill which is now before the House provides for an amount not exceeding £8,500,000 for the services of the Railways and Harbours Administration for the financial year 1941-’42. It is the usual Bill to enable the Administration to carry on with its business until such time as the estimates are approved of by this House and the necessary Appropriation Act has been passed. The amountt mentioned is considered sufficient to cover the expenditure for about two and a half months. I hope it will be possible to introduce the Railway Estimates early in March when I shall give a complete review of the financial position of the Railways. At this stage there is nothing for me to add, and I therefore formally move the second reading of the Bill.

The Minister of Railways and Harbours has a comparatively easy task in moving this Part Appropriation Bill. The Minister of Finance is in difficulty; he has to look for money in order to continue the war, but the Minister of Railways is in the happy position that his revenue is to-day mounting up, and he had a surplus last year and is again expecting a surplus, an even larger surplus than last year. If one looks at the expenditure and the revenue of the Railways one finds that during the past five years the relationship of the running expenses as against the revenue has gone up considerably, and that is something the Minister should keep his eye on, because the day will come when the revenue of the Railways will go down and he will be called upon to economise. That being so, he will have to see to it that the revenue and expenditure are kept more or less balanced. During the past five years his running expenses have gone up by about 10 per cent. more than his revenue. I notice that he closed the previous year with the position being a little better, and that he has succeeded in bringing down his running expenses slightly. There was an increase of 3.61 per cent. that year in the revenue, and the running expenses went up by only 2.79 per cent. Why I emphasise this is that if the Minister should be compelled to retrench, the wages of the workers, as we have found in the past, will be jeopardised. The Railways employ 123,000 people. They are the largest employer in the country, and this wage and salary scale amounts to a total of £20,000,000. Now, it is perfectly clear that if the Minister’s revenue goes down, and he is forced to economise, should a depression come, for instance, steps will very quickly be taken to bring about economies on salaries and wages, with the result that the depresesion which might come over the country will be further aggravated. Consequently, it is necessary for the Minister to try and build up a reserve fund and strengthen the financial position of the Railways, so that when a depression does set in there will be no need to bring down the wages and salaries of the workers. Now, I briefly want to issue a few words of criticism on a number of points. I find that the Minister of Railways is helping the Defence Department to continue the war. The Minister is contributing his share in order to assist the Department of Defence. Now I expect the Minister will make a statement in which it is made clear what exactly is the share of the Railways in the defence contribution. We find that 2,319 Railway officials have obtained permission to join the Army. The difference in wages between what those people could have got as Railway officials and what they are getting to-day as members of the military forces is paid out to them. At the moment, according to the report of the Auditor-General, that amount is not too large: it is only £10,264, but we know that that amount may become a very large one in days to come. My question is whether the users of the Railways and the officials in the service of the Railways will have to bear the difference in salaries which the men are now getting as Railway officials and the amount they are now getting as soldiers. At the moment the Railways are still in a good position, and the Minister is expecting a large surplus, but that will not always continue to be the position. We had the experience in 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923, when the Railway revenue also went down and the then Minister had to retrench to the bone in order to make revenue and expenditure balance. The Minister should bear that in mind, and while there is a surplus to-day, that money should be used to strengthen the Railway funds so that in times of depression he may be able to pull through without having to retrench. It is stated that a great deal of work for the Defence Department is being done in the Railway workshops. We know that all kinds of military equipment is being produced there for the Department of Defence, and I should like to know what exactly is the understanding between the Minister’s Department and the Defence Department. We are told that a great deal of overtime has to be worked in order to do the work for the Department of Defence. Overtime is expensive. Who pays for it? Does the Department of Defence pay for the services rendered by the Railways in manufacturing war equipment, and on what scale? Now there is another point I want to raise. I find that in Bloemfontein there are tradesmen who work overtime for the purpose of manufacturing military war equipment, and those tradesmen, those artisans, have their assistants. If the artisans have to work overtime, then the assistants who help them during the day are sent home, and other assistants are engaged to carry on the work at night. I should like to have an explanation from the Minister. If the assistant was good enough to work with the artisan during the day why should the artisan be allowed to carry on at night and the assistant not be allowed to do so? We have been told that even lorries and armoured cars are being constructed for the Department of Defence. What does the Defence Department pay for those vehicles? Is the Minister of Railways convinced that every penny he pays for the manufacture of those articles is debited against the Defence Department? Or is an extra burden placed on the Railways on account of this work? Then the Minister claims that he is doing his utmost to relieve skilled Railway workers for military service in order to enable them to go there as mechanics. We know that the military service requires a large number of people who have been trained as mechanics, and the Minister tells us that he is doing his utmost in order to allow those artisans to join up as mechanics with the Defence Department. Now I want to put this question to the Minister. The Government recently employed a number of young men with the object of giving them a technical training so that they could become mechanics. Work was promised to those young men but now they have to get out if they are not prepared to take the red oath. They are thrown on the streets. Is he prepared to employ those young fellows who have had an extensive training as mechanics on the Railways? And seeing that those people have been told that there is no work for them if they refuse to take the red oath, I want to know whether that also is the attitude adopted by the Minister of Railways. There must be vacancies caused by men having joined the Defence Department, and those vacancies have to be filled. How is the Minister going to fill those vacancies? Is he busy taking on men and is he giving preference to the people who have had a training under the Department of Labour, and who are now walking about unemployed? Or is it also the Minister’s policy only to appoint people who are willing to take the red oath? I notice that the Minister of Railways stated that he was compelled to curtail his programme of new works, because he did not want to borrow too much money, so that the Minister of Finance would have the opportunity of borrowing money for the continuation of the war. That was the position also in the years 1914-1918, with the result that the position of the Railways, the condition of the rolling stock on the open lines, of the railway stations, and things like that, got into such a state that they were not serviceable for the work required of them. I have studied the annual reports of the Auditor-General for the years 1938-1939 and 1940, to see what the Minister has been doing in order to provide and to supplement his rolling stock. In the year 1938 eight new locomotives were built; in the year 1939 156 new locomotives were built and in the year 1940 only 29. We know that there was a shortage of locomotives on the Railways and the fact that in 1939 156 new locomotives were built is proof of the fact that the Minister made an attempt to supplement the shortage. But in 1940, the first year of the war, only 29 were built. Take passengers’ coaches. In 1938 250 were built; 356 in 1939, and in 1940 o nly 153 were built. I want to refer the Minister to a speech made by him in this House in which he emphasised that he was laying down a new programme specially to build 500 Railway coaches, and 8,000 trucks, because the Minister realises that in addition to the ordinary replacements a special effort had to be made to construct sufficient passenger coaches and goods trucks in view of the fact that there was a great shortage. And yet we find that over this period of three years there has been a reduction. I remember that one of the greatest sins of the Minister of Railways in the years 1914-1918 was that he had not spent sufficient money, or rather that he wanted to save money on the maintenance of open lines and new works. The result was that the open lines of the Railways got into such a state that after 1924 millions of pounds had to be spent on them. If we look at the figures we find this phenomenon, that in 1938 £300,000 was spent on the maintenance of the Railway lines and works; in 1939, £380,000 was spent, but in 1940 only £4,600 was spent. This is a tremendous reduction and I should like to know from the Minister whether he can give us some explanation of that. Is the explanation that he felt that he had to curtail expenditure for the sake of the war effort, and that he preferred to let the railway lines deteriorate, with the result that a great deal of money will have to be spent on it later on. This reduction is tremendous. Perhaps the Minister can give us an explanation of it. If we look at the maintenance of rolling stock we get exactly the same position. In 1938 £456,000 was spent; in 1939 it was £107,000, and last year it was only £130,000. This goes to show that the Minister is apparently busy economising on these services. While the Minister of Railways is in the happy position of having a large surplus, I want to ask him to devote his attention to a matter which I have often raised in this House, and of which I have had personal discussions with him, and that is the position of the lowly paid Railway officials. Some time ago we passed a Bill to lend Railway officials money to enable them to build their own houses. After this Bill had been approved of by the House it was found that the lowly paid man did not benefit from the effort which was made to help him to get his own home. I now find that the Minister of Railways is kind enough to present 150 morgen of ground to the Utility Company for housing in Cape Town on condition that they build 350 houses for Railway men, which will be let to them at a rent of £2 per month. I want to applaud that. But at the same time I want to ask the Minister to realise that although it is urgently necessary in Cape Town that the Railway man who draws a small wage shall get a clean and comfortable house at £2 per month, that same need is felt is felt in Bloemfontein, Pretoria, and all the Railway centres, because in those places Railway men are forced to live in a room for which they have to pay £2 per month. I want to ask the Minister of Railways, now that he has the opportunity of doing something, to take steps to enable the lowly-paid Railway men to secure a house at the low rent of £2 per month. The rent which the man has to nay normally takes a tremendous lot out of his wage, and if the Minister can help in this respect it will contribute greatly towards assisting those people. Then there is another point. In Bloemfontein we have the phenomenon that Railway men are able to live outside the town on erven, and then they come into town on their bicycles. I have found that those people have to ride on their bicycles in the rain, and that they have to do so in the early mornings in winter. They get soaked through, they have to work right throughout the day in their wet clothes, and they return to their homes at night wet. This sort of thing in the long run undermines the health of those people. They get ill, and afterwards they can no longer do their work as they should do it. Could not a Railway bus be instituted for the use of these people? Is it not possible to meet the case of those people, and to run a bus at the various times when they need it? They would then be able to use such a bus at a low fee. The Minister is responsible for his employees; it should be his aim and object to keep them in good health, and if they have to live under the conditions which I have outlined so that they are wet right through the day, if they have to eat cold food, and then return home at night wet, their health must necessarily be undermined. I hope the Minister will assist us, especially in Bloemfontein. He can see to it that the bus is so arranged that the people can go to and from their work by bus at a low rate. The facilities are available to make this possible. The Minister stated the other day that they were paying the lowly-paid man an allowance in respect of the cost of living. I do not know what the details of that scheme are. I only heard that that allowance was being made. I also want to ask the Minister to consider the question of laying down a better scale of wages for the lowly-paid Railway worker. One finds everywhere in the world that a change has to be made in the system which has been in force so far under which some people get tremendously high salaries, and the great masses who do the work get very poor pay. That system has outlived its time. It has to be changed, and I want to ask the Minister now to try and change that system on the Railways. The lowly-paid man must get a better wage. The Minister is spending £30,000 to supply milk and butter under the Government scheme; in doing so he admits that the great bulk of those people are not able to buy butter and milk for their families. For that reason they are subsidised in order to enable them to do so. I want to put this to the Minister, that it is better to pay those people a better wage so that they will be able to help themselves and buy butter and milk for their families. If we do that we do not rob the man of his self-respect. Let us treat him as an honourable man who can look after the maintenance of his family; let us enable him to do so, and if we do so he will give us better service. As I said, the Minister of Railways is in a happy position, and I want to pay a word of tribute to him because the Railway officials, generally speaking, are satisfied and have a certain degree of confidence in him. Most of the Railway men are members of that organisation of which the Government is so scared — they are members of the Ossewa-Brandwag.

Is that so?

Yes, the Minister of the Interior was very much afraid of the Ossewa-Brandwag, but the Minister of Railways at the same time said that he had no objection to it; he said that his trains were running to time, and those people were giving him the best service.

They organised a very nice meeting.

The hon. member knows absolutely nothing about Friday night’s meeting; I want to congratulate the Minister on having had the courage of his conviction, and of saying that though the Railway officials to the extent of practically 90 per cent. were members of the Ossewa-Brandwag, he got the most faithful service from them. I congratulate him on having contradicted the Minister of the Interior and also other Ministers who have tried to rouse suspicion against the Ossewa-Brandwag; I congratulate him on having shown them up.

No doubt the Minister feels in a very pleasant situation these days when the Railways appear to be rapidly piling up surpluses, but despite what I may have to say later on about the distribution of these surpluses to the loyal body of workers, I want to have some assurance from the Minister that his particular department has not set out on a policy of profiteering during the war and particularly that his department has not set out on a policy of sucking the British Government as dry as it is possible to suck. I do so because at least two instances have come to my notice where there is no possible doubt in my mind but that the Railways have embarked on a policy of gross exploitation on a very difficult situation. Let me quote one to start with: I suppose it is fairly common knowledge, and I am not giving away any secrets, when I say that at certain ports of the Union aeroplanes have been landed for the Royal Air Force. This is rather important, and I want the Minister to give me his attention. At one of these particular ports aeroplanes are brought in in cases. The aeroplane is lifted by one lift of a crane from its case, and it is then transported a distance of two miles. It is lifted by one crane, it is put into a truck at the side and transported two miles, for which service the Railway Department charges the Imperial Government £94. £94 for every aeroplane taken out of a ship and transported two miles! It does seem to me a pity that the Minister should have so many conferences, that he cannot listen to me. I am sorry he should have a discussion with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs when his particular item comes on for discussion.

Just carry on.

No, why should I? Perhaps the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs thinks that the House has been adjourned.

Well, I am listening; I have heard every word you said.

I hope so. I am informed on good authority that what I have just said is true, and it is something the Department cannot be proud of. There was one particular ship where the Bill of Lading said that 11 of these aeroplanes were on the ship. When the ship arrived, for reasons which we do not know about, there were only nine aeroplanes on it, but the Railway Department instead of charging for only nine aeroplanes, charged the Imperial Government for 11. They said to the Royal Air Force: “You can go and argue the point with the people who shipped the aeroplanes.”

Did they get a refund?

Not so far as I understand. Incidentally there was a little crane in Durban which was on a scrap heap when the war started. It has been taken over by the Royal Air Force and the Railway Department charges the Royal Air Force 12/6 per day for that crane which has been scrapped. Now that is the way I suppose in which they are going on generally—it appears that the Railways have embarked on a policy of getting as much money as possible out of the war situation from the Imperial Government. It is on a par with what I contend is the general Railway attitude in other directions. I consider that of all Government Departments I have come into contact with, the Railway Administration are contributing least of all to the Government’s war effort. I know that it has got to the stage in Durban where a round Robin signed by all the mechanics in Durban will shortly reach the Minister, asking why it is that they are neither granted the opportunity of joining the army, nor are they given the opportunity of making munitions. The position appears to be scandalous. Man after man has applied for permission to join the armed forces of the Union. They have been turned down on the ground that they are keymen, but even if they are keymen they are still working their ordinary hours in many instances with hardly enough work to do, and they are still refused permission to make munitions. In some instances the men worked from five in the evening till 9 o’clock at night making munitions without pay, and they said they were quite satisfied to make their contribution in that way. The position in Durban to-day is that men are anxious to join the army. They are not given permission, neither are they allowed to contribute their quota in the manufacture of munitions. Sometimes they are given permission. I know of one case where a dozen men were given permission and then, within three days, that permission was withdrawn. And the extraordinary thing is that they are continually told “If you can find a man to take your job, a pensioner or someone else, we shall let you go,” they find men to take their jobs, but still they are not allowed to go. Let me quote an instance which happened to myself. I was concerned with three men who were transport drivers in Durban, and they had made application for permission to join up. They got the usual stereotyped reply that under present conditions they could not be given permission, but if they could find men to take their jobs they could go. In the meantime one or two men were discharged from the army, first-class motor lorry drivers, and I got into touch with the Railway Welfare Officer, and I sent these men along and I said: “Here are fully qualified motor lorry drivers, who are now discharged from the army, will you employ them?” but the reply was: “I am sorry, I can only start these men at the lowest grade of labourers, at 6/3 per day.” I said: “You are looking for men in this Transport Department in order to relieve men who want to join the army and who want to get away.” The reply was: “I know nothing about that.” All I know is that if there are vacancies they must be given to the higher grade labourers who come up in rotation.” I said: “Are there any of these men ready to come up?” and the reply was “Yes, there are a number of them.” Yet the Railway Administration had told these men that they could not allow them to join up because there were no men to take their places. I am satisfied there is something wrong in the Railway Department. If a man is refused permission to join the army— motor lorry drivers, and if there are men on offer to fill the vacancies, and permission is still refused to the men who are willing to join the army, there must be something wrong, and it seems to me that somewhere in the Railway service there is a nigger in the wood pile; somewhere in the Railway service, as in many of the other services, there are a number of people who are not particularly concerned in seeing that South Africa’s war effort is carried to its greatest possible extent, and I feel it is time the Minister himself was given a little bit of a shake. I notice the Minister the other day said that there was no Ossewa-Brandwag in the Railway service—or words to that effect.

No, he did not say that.

He said the Railway service was loyal, and there was no Ossewa-Brandwag.

Well, what about it?

I want to tell the Minister that there are a great many Ossewa-Brandwag people in the Railway service— there are a crop of them.

Have you any proof?

There is a great deal of subversive propaganda going on and it is time the Minister took a stronger line.

Oh, sing some other tune.

If my hon. friend over there will keep quiet I shall carry on. We had the Prime Minister tell us this afternoon that the policy of pacification does not quite pay, that the policy has been taken up the wrong way, and that a great many of the people are beginning to feel that too much of this appeasement of the Opposition is not good for the country. I am one of those who take the view and there is no better place to start than in the Railway service itself, and if the Minister were to put his back into it he would find that there are many ways in the Railways where a far greater contribution could be made not only to South Africa’s war effort, but to the war effort of Great Britain, and of the Commonwealth generally. Then the general attitude of the Railways towards the soldiers is something which could do with a little alteration. I do not think the Railway Administration made a great effort over the Christmas and New Year holidays to cope with the traffic. I do not think they went much out of their way to allow more soldiers to go to their homes for Chrsitmas and New Year. I feel, as a matter of fact, that they put obstacles in the way of these troops to enable them to visit their families. I am quite satisfied that in a measure they put something in the way of these men. I am satisfied if they had knuckled down to the job they could have found a sufficient number of trains to allow a great many more men to go away. And similarly, on the trains themselves, it has come to my observation that the soldier himself is of very little account. If you are travelling with a meal ticket issued by the military authorities you go into the dining room after the civilian passengers have finished.

That is not my experience.

Well, I have seen it happen, and generally speaking the attitude of the Railways is not what it should be. I do not want to develop that argument too far. I only want to bring the attention of the Minister to the fact that all those who support the Government are not sitting back with a self satisfied smile on their faces. Some of us who support the Government are not satisfied that all is being done that should be done, and that in his Department particularly there are a number of things which could be altered, insofar as contribution to our war effort is concerned. Now I want to talk to the Minister about another thing before I sit down, which appears to me to be a breach of faith on his part. Some time ago, I cannot remember exactly when, a conference was held in Pretoria, between the Minister and certain representatives of certain Unions in the Railway service, and at that conference a new examination system with reference to locomotives was discussed. At that conference a new system of examination to which exception was taken, particularly by the Durban artisans, was discussed, and after the discussion the Minister decided to appoint a Commission of one engineer to examine the whole question throughout the country, and the Minister himself gave a specific promise that on receipt of the report from that particular engineer another conference would be held before this new examination system was put into force. No further conference has so far been held. But recently there was issued a notice, by whom no one seems to be quite clear, which brings the new system of examination into force on the 26th January. The most remarkable thing about it is that although the notice has been issued and the date of the 26th January has been set down, the Chief Officials of the Railways seemed to know very little about it, and in actual fact the new system has not been brought into operation.

I do not know whether I ought, with your permission, sir, to repeat the remarks which I made just before the adjournment, because I am sure the Minister did not have an opportunity of listening to what I had to say. But I do want to enlarge upon the last point, which was that the Minister appears to have been, unwittingly I know, guilty of a breach of faith. As he will remember, he himself called this conference to discuss the new method of examination in connection with locomotives. He gave a specific promise at that time that after an engineer had been appointed to conduct the investigation, before anything else was done the Minister would call a further conference of the same people, or rather representatives of the same interests, to discuss the report made by the engineer before finally the new examination methods were put into force. As far as I can gather, the engineer appointed to conduct the examinations appears to have made a very cursory sort of examination. As far as I am aware, no particular evidence was called for, neither was any particular evidence taken. In at least two instances individuals were prepared to lead evidence, but it was not accepted. It appears that this report is in favour of the new examination system. I believe very few people have seen the report, and I notice that the new examination system comes into force, I am speaking particularly of Durban, on January 26th. I am given to understand that representatives of certain prominent Railway trades unions went to Pretoria to see the Minister. The Minister was not there, and they failed to find who really was responsible for the issuing of this particular order, apparently the senior Railway officials knew nothing about it. It has actually been issued, he new system should come into force on the 26th January, but it has not so far been put into force. What I do know from correspondence which I myself have seen is that the department were prepared to put this new system into force without having first of all convened a conference for a discussion of the engineer’s report, which the Minister himself had promised. I am satisfied that this action must have been taken without the Minister’s knowledge, because it hardly seems likely that the Minister would have gone back on his own promise in this respect. I bring it forward now in the hope that the Minister will say who has been responsible for issuing this order, because I am constrained to think that the individual who has been pursuing this particular type of examination was fully aware of the promise which the Minister had made, and one assumes that when a senior railway official is aware of a promise made by the Minister he himself must consider that he is bound by that promise. I trust the Minister will pardon me for reverting a little to something I said earlier, because I am sure he could not follow the trend of my remarks, because he was being besieged by his colleagues. I thought at one time that a new crisis was developing by the number of Cabinet Ministers who were besieging him, and I am satisfied that he could not follow what I was saying. Almost 80 per cent. of the news columns of our newspapers are concerned with the kind of help which the United States of America is likely to give to Great Britain. It seems obvious that the course of the war is going to be decided on how much and how soon help can reach Great Britain from the United States of America. That appears to be admitted, and admitting that one realises that the primary necessity of Great Britain to-day is munitions, particularly aeroplanes. But aeroplanes are not all the story. When we find that strenuous efforts are being made in the United States to give Britain all this aid, I am constrained to think that we do not find a similar situation in the Union. I am almost prepared to say that South Africa, while it has made enormous strides in industry, and has surprised South Africans, it has not surprised me, by the variety of industrial products it is producing, the country could still do a great deal more. We have in this country fine engineering workshops, and the very finest are those belonging to the Department of Railways and Harbours. We have workshops spread all over the country, many of them very much up to date, having the latest types of machinery, and we have employed in those workshops the finest mechanics in the world. As far as Durban is concerned, no really serious concerted effort has been made to utilise the fine workshops there for the purpose of producing munitions to help Great Britain. It has got to the stage when the men themselves are preparing to go forward voluntarily and show that they just simply have not enough work to do. There was a time not so very long ago when in those workshops it was almost necessary to put men on daily pay. In other words, there was so little work forthcoming it became almost necessary to put men on days’ pay. These men are faced with this proposition. They want to join the army, and on the other hand they are refused permission, not by the local officials, and that is the point I want to emphasise. Let me quote a case with which I am intimately concerned which happened only recently. One of the fitters in the Durban workshops happens to have spent his spare time for many years in St. John’s ambulance work. He has passed all the examinations and is a fully qualified officer in the brigade. He was actually sent overseas by the Railways to represent them in one of the competitions. He is a sergeant in the South African Medical Corps, which corps has for some considerable time been trying to get this man released for the army. It is obvious to me that this man, viewed from the point of view of his capabilities, is of more use to South Africa as a sergeant in the Medical Corps than he is in kicking his heels in the Durban workshops, where at times, he tells me, he has little to do. Repeated appeals were made to the Railways, and finally the local people at Durban recommended that he should be permitted to go to the army, the engineering department having made suitable arrangements to carry on his work. The general manager, however, turned this down, despite the fact that the local officials said he could go. And this has happened in dozens of instances, it is almost a waste of time for the local people in Durban to say that a man should go in the army, because all applications have to go to the general manager, and he invariably turns them down. We still at times employ our men in Durban in the manufacture of private coaches for high Railway officials. The whole of the coach staff was employed on filling an order for 50 coaches; there must be a lot of high Railway officials in this country. When we made a lot of noise about that it was stopped, but from time to time this order is still brought back on the tape, and yet we cannot get men away from the coach department. Certain twelve men were given permission to go to the army, but in five or six days the order was countermanded and these men were sent elsewhere. I want to know, and the Railway men want to know why this is happening. I believe the workshops are making a few little fuse caps.

Have they got the equipment?

Yes, the finest in the country. I am talking about a large city, and not a suburban dorp. I am not a mechanical man, but these men tell me they have the machinery there to manufacture munitions on quite a large scale. Some of them tell me they can even make tanks. All they are doing is making a few little fuse caps. I believe in their spare time the men did make a few locks for armoured cars, but apart from that very little is being done, and the men are becoming thoroughly dissatisfied. Shortly after the outbreak of war I put up a memo, to members of the Cabinet, and had the usual experience. Cabinet Ministers send you a nice polite acknowledgement, and thereby hangs a story which I should like to tell the House. I have refrained from saying it before, because I did not want to embarrass the Minister concerned, but I think the time has now arrived when the Minister wants a little jogging. Some months ago I was given to understand that South Africa was exporting iron ore to Great Britain through Durban, and our coaling appliances were being used for that purpose. I was further informed that this was destroying those appliances, and seeing that more ships than ever before were calling at Durban, principally to coal, it was necessary that the appliances should be carefully guarded. I suggested to the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Commerce a scheme for converting the ore into pig iron in this country and exporting it in that form. I suggested that it would not be a very expensive job to increase the smelting capacity of works in various parts of the country, and instead of exporting ore, which is 50 per cent. waste, we should export pig iron. At that time ships were leaving in ballast, and instead of carrying ballast they could carry pig iron. The reply I got from the Minister of Railways was that as I had written also to the Minister of Commerce he would leave it to him. The Minister of Commerce replied that as I had sent a similar letter to the Minister of Railways he would leave it to him. I might have bet that that would happen before I wrote. This is how the business of the country is conducted; this shows just how serious is their appreciation of the help which South Africa might be in a position to lend to Great Britain. I have been told, and I think it is time we ought to be perfectly frank, that the Railways have found a considerable amount of difficulty in using their plant because they cannot get from Dr. van der Byl what he really wants. The time has arrived when we really should reconsider our position in regard to some of the things which are happening. Dr. van der Byl is a man of great ability, but he is not a super man, and I am satisfied that he cannot run Iscor and Ascor and the other “cors” as well as being Director-General of War Supplies, and now chairman of the new industrial corporation. I am satisfied he is not in a position to look after all these jobs at once, and it may be because of the amount of work that is thrown on his shoulders that this kind of position has arisen in the Railway workshops. The Minister may tell me what they are doing in the workshops at Germiston, Pretoria or Uitenhage. Well, if so I should be glad, but I am thinking particularly of the Durban shops which are as good as anywhere, though the buildings are in a bad state. They have the machinery and the mechanics, and I want to hear from the Minister why so little munition work is being done in Durban, and if they cannot do more munition work, why are they not permitted to go into the army? This is not a little bit of jingoism on my part. The Minister will probably receive in a day or two a round robin from almost all the mechanics, skilled men and men in various other jobs, asking why they are not engaged in munition work. It seems to me that it is up to the Minister to make a reasonable and satisfactory reply to that. It has to be made, because in some instances the men have taken their courage in both hands and have resigned in order to join up. I want to suggest to the Minister this, that the munition work by the South African Railways is in the hands of two very minor engineers, and that the senior officials pay very little attention as far as the production of munitions is concerned. The last point I wish to make is the position of the man who resigns his job in order to join the army. There are a number of these men who applied time and time again for permission, and were refused, and eventually put in their resignations. I understand at the moment the Railways are inclined to say: “We will graciously review your position after the war; we have put your papers aside for the moment, and when the war is ended we will be prepared to consider your position.” I would like the Minister to explain to me precisely what the position is of these employees who join up under the emergency regulations. I understand the Government has issued a notice on more than one occasion that part of the regulation is that every man who joins the army shall get his job back when he is discharged. I am not aware that the Department of Railways and Harbours makes an exception. I assume that if the Government issues emergency regulations they apply equally to Government departments as to anybody else, and I assume that if a man is refused permission by the railway authorities to join up, he is at liberty to resign his job, and if he does so, he has the right to get his job back when he is discharged from the army. Of course, if a man leaves the Railways in that way he forfeits the benefit which the Railways are prepared to pay him in making up his army pay to civil pay. But he must get his job back where he was when he joined the army. I contend the Railways has no right to say otherwise, neither has the civil service. Surely we are not going to have one law for the generality of people and another for the Railways in this matter. Surely emergency regulations have not developed to the stage where we have one law for the man in the street and another for the Railways. If I am an employer and my employee leaves to join the army, I am compelled to reinstate him where he was when he left my employ, and the Railways are in the same position. I say we don’t want any of this philanthropic attitude of the Railways, which says: “We will put your papers aside.” We want to know precisely where we stand. If there is somethingwrong which binds the Railways then it is time the regulations were altered. It is not always a question of pay. Badly as I contend the South African army is paid, there are many men working in the Railways who find themselves earning more money when they leave and join the army, and those include men working at responsible jobs like firemen on the engines. If a fireman has three children and leaves his job he is better off financially in the army.

[Time limit.]

We on these benches find ourselves faced regularly every session with the necessity of making a plea for justice for the non-European workers on the Railways. During the period of office of the previous Government that appeal invariably fell on deaf ears. Through most of the time, through most of that period, the Minister was the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), and those of us who have studied his record in dealing with the non-European people of this country in any capacity were therefore hardly surprised that our appeals, as I have said, fell on deaf ears. But when the present Minister assumed his office, those of us who were charged with representation of the non-European interests felt considerably more hopeful, and our hopes were raised when the Minister appointed a Departmental Committee to investigate the whole question of non-European wages and conditions of service in the Railway Administration. During the last session of Parliament that Committee was still pursuing its investigations, but since then it has reported, and what I understand is that various recommendations of the Committee have been put into force. I am going to deal with the results of that Committee’s report insofar as I know them, but before doing so I want to make this request to the Minister, and that is that he should publish the report of that Committee. Various bodies, non-European Trade Unions, other groups of workers, and other interested parties, have given evidence before this Committee, have stated their case before it, and are naturally anxious—seeing that it is understood that the Minister has accepted that report—to find out how their complaints have been dealt with, because they have been airing these complaints in public for many years, and have made some impression on public opinion. But it seems to me a most unsatisfactory procedure when grievances of very long standing have been fully investigated, that the results of that investigation should not be made available to the people who are suffering the injustices which the non-European workers have suffered for many years. Now, the chief matter upon which we who represent the non-European workers want to have some information, is that of their wage rates, and since the Departmental Committee reported certain changes in wage scale have been made, and I want to deal with that in some detail, because we were under the impression—and many of the workers were under that impression—and I myself did something to give them that impression—that the present Minister and the present Government would give them a fairer deal than the previous Government had done, and so far that hope has definitely not been fulfilled by the putting into force of this Committee’s recommendations. I shall deal with the wage position as it was before the Committee investigated, and as it is to-day, since the report of the Committee has been put into force. Before dealing with it in detail it is necessary to recall that in the past the Railway Administration having regard to its size and importance, as a Public Service, having regard to the number of employees that it is responsible for, having regard to those considerations, has the record of being the worst employer in this country so far as non-European workers are concerned. The sort of attitude which was displayed during the period that the hon. member for Gezina was Minister of Railways is to be found in his own words in a reply he made to some remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) a couple of years ago. He said—

Well, now, that is a contention which we have always strongly challenged. We say that the State, whether in its capacity of Railway employer, or any other kind of employer, should set a standard for the payment of fair wages in this country; it should not lag behind the private employer, or in the words of the hon. member for Gezina, adjust its wage basis to what the private employer pays. It would be bad enough if the principle set out by the hon. member for Gezina were observed. But the fact of the matter is that it is not observed, that the State in its capacity as one of the largest employers of native and coloured labour, the State in that capacity pays the worst wages, and gives worse conditions than the State in another capacity compels the private employer to do, through the instrumentality of the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Act. That is the position which has existed for many years and which, as I hope to show, still exists at the present time. The State says to the private employer, “You have to pay 5/- minimum per day in Cape Town to unskilled labourers, but we shall pay a minimum of 4/-.” That is an example of the situation. Now, with regard to the wage rates, I propose to examine shortly the conditions prevailing on the various systems and to compare what is done on the Railways with what the State is compelling private employers to do. The best paid system, as might be expected, is the Cape Western system. There, outside the Cape Peninsula, unskilled wages for non-European workers range from 2/6 to 3/- per day. The man starts at 2/6 per day, and works up to 3/-. Ultimately, if he gets long service increments, he can go to 3/6 after long years of service. In the Cape Peninsula itself the minimum is 4/- and the maximum 4/6. Outside the Cape Peninsula the position is absolutely unchanged by the recommendations of the Committee. In the Cape Peninsula there has been a rise all round of 6d. per day. Now that, I may say at once, I appreciate. I appreciate that rise of 6d. per day all round. But once one has said that, one has said practically everything one can say.

I thought you said we had done nothing.

No, I said I was going to analyse what had been done, and what I said was that the general position on the Railways in paying worse than the State compels the private employer to pay, is still unchanged, and if I can be contradicted on that point I shall be very glad to hear the facts in support of such contradiction. Now, as I have said, I appreciate very much that increase which has been given of 6d. all round. But the worst paid employees are those outside the Cape Peninsula, and they have had no increase in wages at all. Now, the situation in the Cape Peninsula is this, that there is a minimum wage of 4s. and a maximum of 4s. 6d. After two years’ further service, after reaching the maximum, two long service increments can be earned, leaving the worker’s earnings at 5s. per day. Now, 5s. per day is not even a maximum wage, it is the maximum wage plus two long service increments; yet in 11 trades in the Cape Peninsula a minimum of 5s. per day has been laid down by the Wage Board, and in an industry like the building industry, which employs a vast number of native labourers, the wage is 9d. per hour, which, on an eight hours working day, amounts to 6s. per day. So that the Railway maximum is well below what the Wage Board lays down as the minimum for privately employed labourers. Now, on the Cape Northern system, outside the urban areas of De Aar and Kimberley, the wage is from 2s. to 3s. per day. There there has been a rise. They used to pay labourers outside of Kimberley and De Aar a minimum wage of 1s. 8d. per day; 1s. 8d. per day for a man to support himself and his family. I want to make it clear that I am speaking only of workers who do not get rations. I am not speaking of workers who get rations, as they do in some parts of the country. The previous position was a wage of 1s. 8d. for a man who had to support himself and his family, and I therefore welcome the rise from 1s. 8d. to 2s., although it is not a remarkable achievement. In Kimberley and De Aar the wage is unchanged from what it was—2s. 6d. minimum and 3s. maximum, and there again after a long period of service the maximum plus long service increments would be 3s. 6d. Now, again comparing that with what the private employer is compelled to do by the State, the only regulated wage in Kimberley is a minimum of 4s. per day in the commercial distributive trade—again well over the maximum wage paid by the Railways. Unfortunately, the other wages of private employees are not regulated, but I hope that in the near future the Labour Department will see that something is done in that regard. So there again the principle is followed that what the State regards as a decent wage for private employees does not apply to the Railways. North of Mafeking a minimum of 1s. 6d. is paid. I was rash enough some time ago to say at a public meeting in Mafeking that if the Government had done nothing else it had laid down a minimum wage of 2s. for Railway labourers. I was at once called to account, and I was told that north of Mafeking the minimum was still 1s. 6d. In regard to the Cape Midland area, outside Port Elizabeth, 2s. 6d. to 3s. per day is paid. There there is no change. In Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage the wages were 2s. 9d. to 3s. 6d., which has not been changed. In Port Elizabeth the commercial distributive trade wage determination lays down a minimum of 5s. per day. Recently the Wage Board considered the position of 27 trades in Port Elizabeth, and has recommended wages ranging from 4s. to 4s. 6d. per day. Yet in the case of the S.A. Railways and Harbours one finds a maximum laid down of 3s. 6d. per day. The Cape Eastern system has benefited a little, because there the labourers were getting a minimum of 1s. 8d. per day, and now they have been moved up to the princely sum of 2s. In the Free State there has also been a slight rise. A minimum of 2s. has been laid down. The maximum in the Free State outside Bloemfontein and Kroonstad is 2s. 6d. In Bloemfontein it is 3s. The minimum for all private employees in Bloemfontein is 3s. 6d. I mentioned Kroonstad. Incidentally general conditions for natives in Kroonstad were recently the subject of investigation by the Institute of Race Relations, and it was discovered that a native with a wife and three children could just come out on £6 per month. In the Transvaal the story is very much the same. The highest any labourer can earn appears to be 2s. 9d. per day, and the lowest is 2s. It has been calculated that the average amount that a native in private employ earns is 3s. 4d. to 3s. 6d. per day. I am not referring to the mines, because the position there is not comparable with that of other spheres of employment, because rations are supplied. Those, then, are the main features of the recent changes. The only other benefit which the labourers have received, apart from these changes in the scale, are that bridge and telegraph construction gangs have received certain increases which in all fairness seem to be considerable improvements on what they were getting before. And also there has been a concession to people who are employed upon what is described by the Administration’s officers as better class work. Now, in connection with that better class work, an allowance is given of from 3d. to 1s. per day. I want to ask the Minister this: whether he can make it clear what better class work is? I have had men coming to me and telling me that they are doing the same work as skilled European workmen are doing. Well, I hope the Minister will give a definition of what better class work is—I hope he will not only give it to this House, but that he will make it clear to the non-European employees on the Railways. I want to say a few words before I leave the subject of wages on this report generally. Under the recommendations of the report, the additional amount spent on non-European labour amounts to about £65,000 per year—not very much more than one-third of the amount which was taken away from those labourers in 1931 at the time of the depression, and that money was never restored to them. The increases given so far cover about 16,000 non-European labourers, out of a total of well over 50,000 on the Railways. I submit that if the situation was sufficiently serious—and the Minister knows, I believe, that it was—to justify a full investigation, and to make an attempt to remedy the grievances, then I do submit that so far those grievances have not been adequately dealt with. I hope to hear from the Minister that more will be done and further changes made in the future. My only point at the moment is that up to now the grievances which have been so clearly put before the Committee have not been remedied. There is one final point before I leave the subject of wages. Coloured labourers who are married have been given 6d. per day extra. Now, I do not begrudge them that 6d. at all. I am very glad that they have got it. It is a marriage allowance. But if there is a case for granting that 6d. per day extra to a coloured married man, then I firmly contend that there is as good a case for granting that 6d. per day as a general marriage allowance to any unskilled non-European workers on the Railways. The coloured man, when be is unmarried, gets paid on the Railways the same as the native worker, and it is difficult to see why, if a native labourer has a standard of living sufficient to justify a wage the same as the coloured labourer, his standard of living should not be high enough to justify a similar wage if he is married. I hope that this will be a stepping stone to a general marriage allowance for non-European labour. Leaving the question of wages, there are a number of points which I raised on the last Railway Part Appropriation Bill, and upon which I should like to have some information as to whether anything is contemplated with reference to, as a result of this Committee’s report. The first is the status of casual labourers. Now, I always thought of a casual labourer as a man who turned out and did work once or twice a week. But we have the position on the Railways that you have men there who have worked for twenty years, practically without a holiday, who are still classed as casuals and who are employed under conditions which give them no rights at all, no pension rights, and which leave them subject to dismissal at a day’s notice. What I want to submit is this, that if a man has been long enough in the service of the Railways to have earned what the Administration itself terms a long service increment, he should be regarded as sufficiently reliable, sufficiently established in his job to become a permanent man. Now I admit this fact, that there are native people who come from the Reserves, and who like to go away for some months at a time, go to their kraals, and then come back a few months afterwards. They have been in the service of the Railways for a certain time and then they get a privilege ticket to go home and return to the place where they were last employed. Now that a European worker could not do, and I must admit that a person who takes up employment under those conditions—when he goes away for some months at a time—I admit that there then is a case for treating him as a casual. But I am thinking of the many thousands of non-Europeans, coloured and native labourers, who live on Railway property, who always work on the Railways, who have no other homes except beside the line, and I submit that they should be treated differently, and should be given the opportunity of getting a higher status than the man who is genuinely a casual. I suggest that if a man has reached the stage that he has obtained a long service increment, and he does not leave his employment but carries on on the Railways on a regular basis, so long as he remains in that employment he should be put on the permanent staff and only be allowed to be dismissed for reasons given and he should have pensionable rights. Another matter which causes great hardship is that if a casual labourer gets ill, he gets no pay at all to keep his family who often have no home in the Native Reserves. If a non-European worker is sick for a period, he should be treated on the same basis as other employees. The Administration should accept responsibility for his family during his period of sickness. With regard to hours, the position is thoroughly obscure and I must say that I would appreciate a statement from the Minister on that subject. The normal civilised procedure is to lay down an eight hour, or at the most a nine hour day. Those are the hours usually stipulated in industrial agreements and wage determinations, and I understand that the Government are even contemplating legislation this session under which they are going to reduce the hours of work still further. Yet we find on the Railways men working ten, eleven and even twelve hours per day. And this is very hard, arduous work. As I say, I should appreciate a statement from the Minister as to whether there is any rule at all as to hours, and if so, what it is, and also I want to make this submission—it would not cost the Administration very much. The Administration could well afford to lay down, as it has done in the case of private employers, a maximum of eight hours per day, and if a work is employed beyond that he should be paid overtime at a rate of at least time and a half on his ordinary wage. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in a suggestion of that kind, and I do submit that the Railway Administration could well afford it. Coming now to the question of holidays, at present all the holiday facilities, paid holiday facilities, received by the nonEuropean people are that the coloured labourer gets five paid public holidays per year, the native gets only three. Why there should be that discrimination I do not know, and I have protested against it before. I contend that the position should be that every non-European labourer should either get every public holiday on full pay, or be paid double for any public holiday he works as is the case with other workers on the Railway, and in addition the Administration should make some attempt to keep in step with what private enterprise is increasingly being compelled to do, and that is to grant two weeks holiday on full pay per year to all its employees, whether European or non-European. This would not, Mr. Speaker, I submit, cost you very much, and would give a contented service and provide an alleviation of the conditions which now prevail. As regards the cost of living, I understand that a cost of living allowance is being granted of 1d. a day for unmarried and 2d. a day for married men, and I would like to ask the Minister, in the event of the cost of living increasing considerably, the allowance will be increased proportionately. I hope the Minister will give us enlightenment on that point. May I say in conclusion that we on these benches had some hope of improvement in regard to the treatment of nonEuropean railway servants under the present Government, but so far very meagre improvements have been made, improvements which are rather less than those effected under the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). I do submit to the Minister that there is an opportunity here for improving the lot of the nonEuropean worker. I am aware that the country is engaged in war, but that is no reason to deny justice to these people, who have suffered under injustice for many years. At very little cost the Government could benefit thousands and thousands of employees.

In all justice and fairness, I must say that the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), who has just sat down, has really put up a very courteous plea to the Government on behalf of the electors that he represents. He has not yet been so blinded by the war effort of the Government as to forget the interests of his constituents. In this respect he is quite the reverse of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), the high priest of socialism in our country. I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment, because I would like to address a few words to him. I just want to tell him that although we heard so much from him in the past about the interests of the working men and the poor man, we now hear just as little about them, and apparently he has already come so much under the influence of, and the fraternising with, the capitalists on the Government side has already gone so far, that the hon. member has quite forgotten all the principles of socialism which he always advocated. All we get from him was an egging on of the Minister in the war effort. He is very much concerned about the expenses which the Imperial Government have to pay in connection with the delivery of certain material in South Africa, and he even went so far as to repudiate a very important and fundamental principle of the Labour Party by moving that outsiders should be taken in the place of the trained workers who are in the railway service at the same wage, so that the trained workers will have an opportunity of going to the war. And then he also came along with the customary threat, which we get so often from the newspapers that support the other side, and from hon. members on the other side, that the Government should take stronger action. He announced that there were certain influences in the railway service which were handicapping the war effort. He therefore alleges that the Minister is lax, and should take stronger action, especially with members of the staff who are members of the Ossewa-Brandwag. In connection with that I want to congratulate the Minister on his action. I know it sounds a little strange that we on this side of the House should congratulate a member of the present Government, but I also want to add to hat that the congratulation of the Minister on his wise action is the exception which proves the rule, namely, the rule that there is a general lack of judgment and sense on the part of the Cabinet. I want to congratulate the Minister on the fact that he has not permitted his colleague, who has now sustained such honourable wounds at Klerksdorp, to stampede him, and I would like the Minister to continue with his wise conduct; then he will constantly enjoy the loyalty of his staff, which he has to-day, because I know that it is the Minister’s definite policy to allow no victimisation to be committed against Afrikaners. I know that his action is wise, but I also want to say that there are certain things going on in the Railway service which the Minister does not know about. I just want to mention a few of the numerous cases, for the information of the Minister, so that he will be in the position of taking stronger action. I do not blame the Minister, but the heads of his departments. Apparently the spirit of lawlessness which is now prevalent among the soldiers of the Prime Minister, also effects certain members of the Railway staff. The position to-day is that life for the Afrikaans-speaking people, especially among the clerical staff, has been made almost intolerable in the Railway service. There is a constant challenging, and I have received a large number of complaints from people who say that then lives have become quite intolerable. There is always a continuous persecution of people who possibly wear a beard, or against whom there is a suspicion of their being members of the Ossewa-Brandwag, or that they sympathise with this side of the House. I want to mention a few concrete cases. I shall give no names over the floor of the House, but I am prepared subsequently to give the names of the officials concerned to the Minister. The first is the case of a clerk who was complained against of being a member of the Fifth Column, and that he was a danger to the war effort of the administration. He received notice that he was immediately transferred to Durban. The individual came to complain to me. I instituted inquiries, and I found that what really happened was that on the 4th September, 1939, when the result of the vote in this House became known up-country, he made certain remarks in the presence of other persons. He said something in connection with the Prime Minister, and months later, seven or eight months afterwards, one of the persons who heard the remarks tried to get evidence against the official as to his being a member of the Fifth Column. There was nothing else against him. He never took part in politics while he was in the service, he never expressed his views, nor had he ever yet announced to what particular party he belonged. As a matter of fact I do not know whether he belongs to any political party. But an enquiry was not even instituted. That is the usual procedure. If a complaint of that nature comes in to one of the heads of the department, an enquiry is never instituted. The official who is complained against is never asked to appear before the head and to speak for himself. All that happens is that he gets notice of transfer to some extremity of the country or other. In the case of the person I have mentioned, notice was immediately given that he was transferred to Durban. You will understand what that means to such an official, who has already come under suspicion on the Rand that he is sympathetic with this side of the House. Now he is sent to the most imperialistic place, Durban. What will his life be like there? The life of these people is made such a misery that in the end they abandon the service. I have investigated this matter more closely to see what was done wrong by the officials. I asked the assistant general manager to make a detailed enquiry. A few days later I heard that the notice had been withdrawn, and he was then not transferred. This proves that unfounded complaints are made. But officials are usually not given the chance of defending themselves. They are simply sent to some distant corner or other of the country on transfer. That is a scandalous state of affairs. I am only mentioning this one case, but there are many others like it. Many such cases have been brought to my notice. Only a few days ago another similar case was brought to my notice. It is a case of an official who has been working for years any years in Johannesburg. That official, as it happens, wears a beard.

Tell us about the Ossewa-Brandwag.

Hon. members opposite are constantly having attacks of nerves merely when they hear about the Ossewa-Brandwag. I am only mentioning these few cases. That official suddenly received notice of transfer to some small out-station or other. Let me mention another case which came to my notice, a case which is still more scandalous. I would like the Minister to take particular note of this. You would not think that such a thing could happen in 1940, because it did happen in 1940—last year. For years and years we heard that the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking people had equal rights in the Railway service. The Minister’s predecessor upheld the equal rights of the two sections. But here we have a case of an Afrikaans-speaking clerk who went to a checker with a consignment note. He spoke to the checker, who speaks good Afrikaans, in Afrikaans, and then the checker replied: “I do not understand Afrikaans, and I do not want to understand it.” The clerk said: “But surely you have to be bilingual.” Then he replied: “There is no ‘must’.” The checker then went off and reported the man, because he had ventured to address him in Afrikaans. What happened then? The head of the department, who happened to be an Englishman, took the clerk by the arm and compelled him to go and apologise to the checker for having ventured to speak to him in Afrikaans. I will also give this name to the Minister if he wants to have it.

Fiftyfifty.

Yes, the Minister wants to uphold the principle, I admit it. This is probably one of the cases which took place without his knowledge, and therefore I asked that a more strict supervision should be maintained over his officials and the work they do. Things are so bad in the offices that if an Afrikaner sits where there are Englishmen and Saps, then he is provoked and abused to such an extent, then the Nationalists and everything that is Afrikaans is so abused that he is unable to stand it. He has, however, to remain silent, because if he opens his mouth he is complained against as being a member of the Fifth Column, and the next day or the day after he suddenly gets a notice of transfer. I want to say that the Railway officials who are left behind to-day are carrying the whole of the Railways on their shoulders. The staff has been reduced, and that means much more work for the persons who remain behind. Nevertheless, the complaint has been made here to-night that the administration should release even more people to go and fight. The persons, however, who are left behind and have to do all the additional work, are constantly jeered at and they are treated in such a way and so much compulsion is used against them that they are almost obliged in each case to go and fight. I noticed the other day in one of the newspapers that a certain pensioner went into an office and then he noticed a large group of young fellows there. He then cursed and swore because they had remained behind and had not gone to fight. That was published in one of the English newspapers. Things are made attractive for the officials to join up and to go and fight, but the more that join up the harder those who remain behind have to work. Only yesterday or the day before I noticed how attractive things were made for apprentice clerks. It says in this notice that young lads who sit for the entrance examination and pass it, if they join up and if they come back after six months or a year or three years, will not only get a preference but will immediately be taken on in the service. I want to ask the Minister what is going to happen to those who are taken on in the interim. The work has to be done. You can’t continue reducing the staff. What becomes of the lads who have been taken on in the service? Will they be kicked out again; are they only engaged in a temporary capacity? I say that the officials who remain behind and do all the work are the cause that the Minister will, in after a month, be able to come to the House and announce a fairly large surplus, and I say that they should get a preference and better treatment than the officials who go to fight. I would like to bring another case to the notice of the Minister. Last year a petition was sent round in connection with the support of the Government’s war policy. The petition was signed everywhere. In the City Hall here a large function took place when the petition was handed over to the Prime Minister. That petition was taken round by Railway officials to the Railwaymen while they were on duty. They were all asked to sign. I can once more give names of head officials who even accompanied the official who submitted the petition for signature to each of the other officials. I want to ask the Minister whether if that is allowed, although the regulations say that politics may not even be discussed during working hours, or at any Railway locale, he will permit other Railway officials to go about with other petitions which are drawn up from our point of view. Will he grant the same privileges in connection with petitions of that kind? I also want to ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours to explain to the House what compulsion is exercised over his divisional superintendents to make them all sign the “red” oath. Then I come to yet another matter, namely, the appointment of Mr. Louis Esselen, as a member of the Railway Board. Let me say that I have nothing in the least against the person or capacity of Mr. Esselen, but I understand that although Mr. Esselen is becoming a Railway commissioner, he is at the same time still carrying out his duties as party secretary.

Where did you hear that?

I learn on fairly reliable authority that the party is not appointing any general secretary in his place, but that Mr. Louis Esselen, in his private capacity, even if he does not sit in the office, will still carry on his work for the benefit of the United Party.

These are once more nothing but propaganda stories.

On the other side of the House they have so little to make propaganda with that as a matter of fact they really have no work for their propaganda agents. The Minister has not yet indicated what his Budget will be, but we do know that he will have a considerable surplus. I therefore want to avail myself of the opportunity, in contradistinction to the hon. member for Umbilo, who has forgotten all his socialistic principles, to plead for certain concessions to the Railway men, so that the Minister, before he introduces his Budget, will still have the opportunity of considering this. In the first place, I notice that the Administration has now decided, if the cost of living rises by 4 per cent., to pay a cost of living allowance to certain officials. I have here before me Notice No. 2647 in connection with the cost of living. It says that the scheme has now been adopted and that a cost of living allowance will be paid. I believe it is not yet being paid, but they say that if the cost of living some day rises by 4 per cent., the allowance will then be paid. According to this circular which was issued, it is said that when the cost of living has risen by 4 per cent., then all European officials who receive up to £100 a year in wages will receive £6 per annum as cost of living allowance in the case of married persons, or 10s. a month, and the unmarried persons will receive £3, or 5s. a month. Those who receive from £100 to £200 will receive £6 as allowance in the case of married persons, but if the cost of living rises by 6 per cent., then those who fall between £200 and £400 will be the first to be considered, and they will then get £12 a year as allowance, or £1 a month. The largest group of the officials is the one of those who receive between £200 and £400 a year. All the third grade clerks who receive £330 a year come into the group, and the train-staff, of whom the great majority earn between £200 and £400, also fall within it. They must wait until the cost of living has risen 6 per cent., when only they will get something, namely, £1 extra a month. The other group under £200 get 10s. a month. I say that that group of low-paid officials should be treated particularly well so far as allowances are concerned. Those people who get the low wages are having a particularly hard time, and they have not yet received any increase since the Minister came into office. The hon. member for Cape Western pointed out that his electors, the non-European electors, got something, but the European staff have of got any increases yet. The low-paid officials will then get an allowance of 10s. a month, and the non-European staff will get 5s. a month, that is to say, the non-Europeans who earn more than £60 and less than £100. I have no objection to the fact that the nonEuropeans should get 5s. a month, but I do want to say that I do not believe that the Minister will say that the standard of living of those Europeans is only just twice as high as that of the non-Europeans. The Europeans get 10s. and the non-Europeans 5s. In other words, it means that the standard of living of non-Europeans is only half as much as that of the Europeans, the low-paid Europeans. I really think that the Minister should come to the help of the low-paid officials who get less than £200 with a larger allowance. Ten shillings a month is much too small. When the cost of living goes 8 per cent. over what it was, then for the first time the group which earns between £400 and £600 gets something, namely, £20 per annum in the case of married persons, or £1 13s. 4d. a month. The unmarried persons in that group get nothing. But the married persons have also to wait until the cost of living has gone up 8 per cent. It is, however, stated that up to the present the cost of living has not yet gone up even 4 per cent. During last session I pointed out that the cost of living at that time had already gone up more than 4 per cent. I want to draw the notice of the Minister to a statement by the chairwoman of the Housewives’ League, ladies who have gone fairly carefully into the matter of the cost of living. Mrs. Jenkins, according to the Sunday Times of the 5th January, says—

It is an authoritative statement that the cost of living has already gone up by 14 per cent. months ago. I do not want to throw doubt on the Department of Statistics where the Minister gets his figures from, but I think that they get their figures by taking the small centres and the big centres together, and then they get an average for the whole country. I am prepared to assume that there are small places where the cost of living has not yet risen, but in big towns like Johannesburg and Cape Town, the cost has gone up by more than 4 per cent. I see that in a circular there is yet another provision made, and that is that officials who are in receipt of a rent rebate will only get four-fifths of the allowance. The rentrebate was instituted by the Minister’s predecessor, and is paid to officials who pay more than one-fifth of their wages in house rent. Now it is said in the circular that when a man gets a rent rebate, then he will not receive the full allowance, but only four-fifths of the allowance. I want to ask the Minister why this discrimination is made. The official who lives in a railway house where he only pays one-sixth of his wage in house rent will in fact receive the allowance, the full allowance, but a discrimination is made against the person who pays one-fifth of his wages in house rent and who gets a rebate. I think that there is no reason for that discrimination. There is yet another group, namely, the train-staff, receives booking-off expenses, which is apparently excluded, and also certain members of the staff who get relieving expenses. No provision is made for them. I just want to explain what is meant by booking-off expenses. The train staff specially work trains from their home depot to another depot, where they then have to stop over for from eight to sixteen hours, generally. For the period that they have to remain there they receive booking-off expenses of on the average at 3s. It was always 3s. 9d. before 1933. Owing to the then drop in the cost of living, it was reduced to 3s. Now, however, no provision is being made for an increase. With regard to relieving expenses, the same applies. These two matters are cuts made during the depression which have never since been restored. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not also take that into consideration when he pays the cost of living allowance. Those payments certainly ought to be taken into consideration. I would also like to put up a plea to the Minister before he submits his Budget on behalf of the low-paid men. I have already said that the white officials have not yet had any improvement made in their position. There has, indeed, been a trifling concession to the non-Europeans since the Minister came into office, but the Europeans have as yet got nothing. Certain cuts were made which have not yet been restored. One cut which was made 20 years ago has never yet been restored. The hon. member who spoke before me said that the Government apparently did not hesitate to have laws passed here which were applicable to private employers, but that the Government did not want to do the same thing for its own workers. Under legislation which is passed here, certain privileges are given to workers who are in private employ, but the Government do not do the same for their own workers. One of those Acts makes provision for a 46-hour working week, but the Railway Administration have never yet applied the same principle to their own employees. In the Railway service we find officials who work ten hours a day, while the Government passes laws for outside employers not to allow their employees to work more than 46 hours a week. Those hours are constantly being further reduced. To apply the 8-hour working day to the train staff, to ticket examiners and guards, will cost only approximately £90,000—an extremely small amount. That is a recommendation which was made by the House of Service Commission which sat in 1926, but the recommendation has never yet been carried out. Inasmuch as the Railways are now in a flourishing condition I want to ask the Minister to reconsider this matter and to introduce the 8-hour working day annually in the Railway service. It ought to be still further reduced, but let us start with the 8-hour working day being applied to all, to all the employeees of the Railways. Another matter which I urged last session was the question of the officials who had to leave the service owing to bad health before they had reached the age limit. The Minsiter does not want to agree to an amendment in the Bill which he has introduced, or rather it has been ruled out of order. But I want again to make a plea on behalf of those officials who had to leave the service before they had reached the age limit, that they should receive better treatment. There is not time now to go into details. The Minister is, however aware of all the details in connetion with the matter. I say that it is one of the most unjust things which are being done by the Railway Administration, that those men who have had to leave the service owing to ill-health—and their ill-health is in most cases due to the nature of the work which they were compelled to do—are not being treated better. I would like the Minister to reconsider this matter carefully before he introduces his main budget. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) mentioned the manufacturing of war material by the Railway Administration. Railway workshops, railwaymen and railway material are being-used for the making of war materials. We have no details at all in connection with the matter. The General Manager, in his report, happens to make mention of it without giving any details. I only want to ask whether the Administration is doing it at a loss or at a profit. I would like to know from the Minister whether the making of war material for the Central Government is being done by the Administration for the war effort at a loss or at a profit, and if it is actually being done at a loss, then I want to know from the Minister whether he has borne the provisions of Section 127 of the South African Act in mind. I also want to ask the Minister whether he will consider having an enquiry instituted into the renewals fund. I am speaking of the amount for ordinary depreciation, and the special amounts from revenue which are paid into that fund. I have referred to that every year, and I do not want to go into them again. But I want to ask the Minister whether before he introduces his main budget he will go very carefully into that matter. Very excessive amounts are taken from revenue for the renewals fund. It is apparently the custom to reduce the surplus of revenue over expenditure in that way, in order to make no concessions to the public or to the employees. Another matter which I want to touch upon in passing is the question which is mentioned year after year in his report by the General Manager, to wit, the overlapping of road traffic and railway traffic, and the conflicts between the policy of the Road Transportation Board and that of the Railway Administration, and in regard to that the proposal which has been made for the institution of a portfolio of Transport. I understand that the Minister was in favour of that in the past. I do not know whether he is still in favour of it now, and I would like to learn from him what his attitude is in connection with it. I have no time to go into that. But if it is actually done, then it will bring about a very big improvement in the efficiency of the Railways with far larger profits in connection with traffic, and far fewer conflicts between the Road Transportation Board and the Railway Administration. In such event it would possibly not have been necessary to introduce the Bill which is at the moment before the House in connection with road transportation. I have brought these few matters to the notice of the Minister. I do not know how much of it he understood. As he is making praiseworthy attempts to speak Afrikaans I want to suggest that he should take a few lessons in Afrikaans. It is no use making a small written speech in Afrikaans every year. We appreciate it, but I think that the Minister who has charge of an important state department, ought to lay himself out to understand and speak Afrikaans thoroughly. If he understood and spoke Afrikaans well, he would be in a position to appreciate the point of view and the attitude of the Afrikaners. If he could do so, it would possibly not be necessary to come here with complaints about the treatment of the Afrikaners in the Railway service. I would like to urge the Minister very storngly to learn Afrikaans, because then he will be in the position of appreciating and valuing the point of view and attitude and feelings of the Afrikaners more, and I am certain that his administration of the Railways will then be far more efficient.

The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) has been hardly fair to the Minister who has done his best to master Afrikaans.

I appreciate that.

The Minister has done his very best to become bilingual and he certainly has made great progress. There are just a few matters to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention. In the first place I want to ask him about the graving dock in Cape Town. I am not going to traverse the question I put on the paper, but there are other aspects of this matter to which I would like to draw his attention. In view of what has happened in the world war, the importance of Cape Town has become of world-wide significance. Cape Town is the port which is visited by those ships which want to go to Egypt or to the East, and it is the first port of call for America, and altogether the importance of Cape Town has been extremely enhanced. A great many bricks have been thrown at the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) and I certainly have differed from him very severely from time to time, but Cape Town undoubtedly owes him a debt of great gratitude for pushing the question of the reclamation of the harbour area. He deserves commendation for what he has done in that respect. Now, on the question of the graving dock, I took it from the answer which the Minister gave to the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Friedlander) the other day that they still have the old plans in existence. When the new Graving Dock was planned in 1938 provision was made for a dock which was to have been about 1,200 feet in length. Now, have the estimates for this new dock contemplated in 1938 been completed, and are the plans and specifications for that dock in existence? Hon. members will be surprised to hear that whereas it was intended to have a graving dock 1,200 feet in length the existing graving dock which is sixty years old, is only 530 feet in length and 66 feet wide—too small for ordinary-sized merchant ships—so that many of the ships calling here have not been able to receive the attention they require, and have had to go elsewhere. The Government is losing thousands of pounds, and the port and the town are losing large amounts.

Well, Durban can do it all.

Durban gets some of that, but most of that money is lost to South Africa. You do not suppose that a ship is going all the way round to Durban—it will go straight on its course. Durban gets a little of it, but South Africa loses most. What is the good of spending this huge sum of money on reclaiming the Cape Town Harbour if you do not have a good graving dock? A modern graving dock is absolutely essential. I would say this, as far as the Minister is concerned, that he and the Government have admitted the necessity for this graving dock. The Minister has said that there is insufficient equipment for both the reclamation and the graving dock, so it is more important to complete the reclamation. We agree, but we would like the Minister who is very cautious, and who refuses to commit himself, to tell us what the position is. We would like to know from him whether it is the intention to carry on with the graving dock. He has told us that when the reclamation is finished he will take expert advice as to whether a new dock is necessary, and what its dimensions should be. But surely now is the time to get that advice. If you are going to wait until the reclamation is complete before making your enquiries, you lose another two years. The probability is that when the war is over, if your enquiry is made now, your plans will be ready and you will be able to carry on with the work. I therefore hope that the Minister will give us a more complete statement than he has done. His statement now is one of wait and see. We want a little more than that. Now there is another matter which I want to deal with. It is a matter which was always raised by members, such as the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) and myself. It has been raised by us in this House from time to time. The non-European Union of Railway and Harbour workers have been very moderate in the views they have put forward, in order to remedy the position of non-European workers on the Railways. The Railways to-day are experiencing a period of great profits and they are making a good thing out of the war. The fact is that the Railways are making millions of pounds of profits out of running the Railways, and the first thing they should do is to look after their employees. It is quite true that a great deal has to be done for the European labourers, too, and I am in favour of that, but when hon. members like the hon. member for Fordsburg say that nothing has been done by the Minister, for the white labourer, whereas something has been done for the non-European labourer, surely the hon. member forgets the tremendous gap there is between the wages of the European labourers and those of the others.

I have not taken exception to that.

No, but I agree with the hon. member’s plea for the European labourer, but the Cinderella of the service is the non-European labourer, because there is no justification for the niggardly wage paid to the non-European labourer. The hon. member for Cape Western said that the nonEuropean labourers were not given a better deal to-day than they got under the previous Government, but that is not quite fair. One of the difficulties which we have to contend with is that while the Departmental Committee has been investigating the grievances of the labourers, we don’t know what their findings were. There were a multitude of grievances which were investigated by that Committee. Here we, as members of Parliament, have been agitating about the position of these men, and we are not allowed to know what is in the report of that Committee. The Union cannot get the report, and we cannot get it. We are asked to vote globular sums for the Railways but we are not allowed to see that report. What secrecy can there be about that report? If the report is suppressed, it can only mean that it discloses a state of affairs which the Department does not want us to see. If the Department treats its men properly, what is the reason for keeping this report secret? We as members of a democratic Assembly having to legislate, and to vote sums of money for Railway purposes, have a right to see that report. Why should the Minister not lay upon the table this report, so that we may see whether the complaints we have made are justified or not? Mind you, this is a Departmental Committee and not a judicial enquiry. If the Minister has decided to suppress that report, he is doing a grave wrong to the non-Europeans, and to the members of this House, and he is doing an injury to a democratic Government. Not having seen the report and not knowing what is in the report, we can only gather from this non-European Union how many men have benefited from the Committee’s recommendations, and the hon. member for Cape Western has given us a figure showing that out of 53,000 non-European workers, 16,000 have benefited from this report in amounts of 6d., 4d. and 2d. increases, and that the total sum of the benefits amounts to £65,000. The House should remember that it is reported by the Administration that they in the first half of 1940 had a surplus of some £4,000,000, and in spite of that surplus the increase in expenditure only amounted to £84,000, and of that £84,000 the non-Europeans got £65,000. So there was a difference available of the sum between £4,000,000 and £84,000, which they could have used partly to get rid of this terrible injustice to the non-Europeans once and for all, and also to give a lift to the European labourers. But it has not been done. The amounts they have got are very small. Take this cost of living allowance. The poor man, the man in receipt of a very small wage, is worse off than the man who gets a little more. The very poor man has to pay more for everything he buys than the other man. That is due to the fact that he cannot afford to buy in larger quantities, and therefore his increase in the cost of living is greater than that of the other man. It is contended that the allowance has been given to these people in the shape of 1s. 3d. per week—but it is only the married man who gets 5s. per month. The hon. member for Fordsburg said that the non-European got an allowance of 5s. per month. That is only the married man—the unmarried man only gets 7½d. per week, or 2s. 6d. a month. I have been in the Union Parliament and in the Cape Parliament since 1908, and I have been trying to find out for many years when the casual man becomes a permanent man.

When he dies.

Yes, that seems to be the answer. I have come across many cases like that. A man continues in the Railway service for twenty years and more, and he is still a casual.

The Minister is sometimes in doubt himself.

The Minister is not a public servant. I hope the Minister will not be a casual.

Oh, yes, I am.

Well, I am pleading with the Minister to-night because I realise that he is a man who will listen to reason. Now there is one little point I want to make: how hard things go with the casual man. One of the things which the casual men have represented from time to time is that they get no concessions in respect of their residential quarter fare railway tickets. Now they have got a concession on their tickets if they work at least 15 days per month for the Administration. They would like to work every day. But the fact of the matter is that hardly any of them work more than 10 to 12 days per month, so that this concession is not worth anything at all. So they cannot get a residential concession fare. Why not reduce that period to ten or twelve days? Take the actual number of days they work over a period of a year and give them a concession on that. It is no use giving them a paper concession.

They offer themselves every day, and they have to travel every day.

Yes, that is quite right. But when it comes to the calculation of the 15 days, I am afraid that the days they offer themselves are not included. The days that are counted are the days on which they are working, and not the days they are not working. The days when they do not work are in legal parlance “dies non”. Let me refer to another matter, on which I want to say a few words. The Minister was a bit sympathetic on this question when he was not the Minister. I think he will admit that on this point there is a good deal to be said —I am referring to the question of the monopoly given to one particular firm in regard to the issuing of Railway tickets. There is only one firm in South Africa which is paid a commission for selling Railway tickets on behalf of the Railways.

No.

Yes, and that was in existence even when your Government was in power. Other travel bureaus have arisen in South Africa, but they have been refused any commission by the Railway Administration. If they sell any tickets for travel on the Railways, they cannot get any commission. I have raised this matter time and again, and I get sympathetic replies, but it does not get beyond that. The reason they give is that it is an old-established firm and it is a pioneer firm. The fact of the matter is that one firm has the monopoly.

Why should any firm get it?

Every country in the world where you succeed in bringing business to the Railways gives a commission. It is a business concern, and people spend money in advertising, and if you succeed in bringing business to the Railways you are entitled to get something for it. It is a principle recognised in every part of the globe. The Minister has recognised the principle, but only in regard to one firm. And let me say that some overseas firms get it. Recently there was a firm in the Belgian Congo. They got this concession on tickets they issued from the Congo to the Union. But firms in the Union cannot get it, except the one.

Well, we pay it to firms overseas.

The Rhodesian Railways pay commissions to firms in the Union for tickets they sell for the Rhodesian Railways. The Minister seems to be a sort of a poobah. As Minister of Railways he refuses to give such commissions, except to the one firm, but as Minister of Airways he actually does pay such commissions. The Minister may be able to explain why there is no monopoly for airways, while there is a monopoly for the Railways in regard to one particular firm. There is just one other point I want to raise. There are certain men on the Railways who still suffer disabilities as a result of certain unfortunate strikes, whereas the bulk of the Railway men who have been re-employed after having taken part in other troubles have had everything washed out, and quite right too. Now is the time to restore the position of these few existing men here and there who still suffer disabilities in their position as a result of strikes which occurred many years ago. I would ask the Minister to wipe these things out and let them all be put on the same footing. These men have made good by the splendid work they have done, and it is time that these things were blotted out.

I do not want to make any criticism of the Minister, nor do I want to praise him, although I do have a soft place in my heart for him, because he at least has had the courage to say that he does not mind railwaymen belonging to the Ossewa-Brandwag. They can become members of the Ossewa-Brandwag, and they can also play jukskei if they want to. He is not so small minded as some of the others. I am glad of it, and I thank him for it. I am a member of the Ossewa-Brandwag, and I play jukskei. I hope that he will also become a member of the Ossewa-Brandwag, and if he does not become a member, and there happens to be a strike some day, then I would recommend him to ask the Ossewa-Brandwag to come and suppress the strike. They will be able to do it far better because they are far better organised. I also want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to ask the Ossewa-Brandwag to suppress the riots on the Wit-watersrand, because his police and his citizen forces cannot do so. The Ossewa-Brandwag is actually able to do so. He can safely approach them, and he need not even arm them. Batons will be enough. Now I revert to those little things which I have already pleaded for with the Minister in the past, and the first is in connection with the wages of coloured persons. I am not speaking here in the interests of the natives. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) has said enough on their behalf. But that section of the labourers on the open lines whom I have referred to are, I feel, being unjustly treated. Years ago 6d. a day was taken off their wages during the depression, and it has not been restored to them again as yet. I come into touch with those people. I have a long railway line in my constituency of about 100 miles, and then also Touws River, so that I know what is going on. I know that those people cannot live properly on the 4s a day—I think it is 4s—which they receive. The matter was brought to me notice by the European foremen, who said to me: “Look at those men sitting there. They are not able to have anything to eat in the middle of the day. Their families are large and they are dependent on the dealers for getting their food on credit, with the result that they are not able to have a proper midday meal, and they sit and wait until the others are finished before starting work again.” I make an earnest appeal to the Minister to bear the interests of those people in mind, even if they are coloured persons. Their standard of living, moreover, is improving, and we must see to it that they get enough to live on, otherwise they will have to steal. It will be asked why these people do not go to work on the farms. All cannot go back. The people on the farms get much less, so far as money is concerned, because they are better off. On the farms on 2s. 3d. a day they can live better—because they have a free house, free water, firewood, etc—than on 4s. a day on the Railways. I hope that the Minister will make a concession to those men. Another matter that I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister is a thing which is in the interests of the administration itself, and that is that at Touws River, as I have been told, every 24 hours 24 engines have to be cleaned out. It is done in this way. The tap is turned on, and the water is pumped out of the locomotive with a centrifugal pump. There is a man who is specially charged with the work, and who earns a good salary. Then again water is pumped into the engine to wash it out. About 36,000 gallons of water are daily pumped in in order to wash the locomotive out. That amounts together to about 72,000 gallons of water. That is a very large quantity. With the sanitation system which now prevails at Touws River, every small amount of water is required for the people there for local use. I want to suggest, and I think the Minister should investigate it, that they should make a small reservoir and pump the water from the engines into the reservoir. Then they could, after the water had cooled off, use the same water, with the addition of other fresh water, to wash out the engines. That would represent a big economy, and I think that is is worth the consideration of the Minister. Then I would like to touch upon yet another matter. The Minister promised me last year that he would institute an enquiry into the heating of guards’ vans. I now want to ask him whether he has done so. He never said that he had done so, or whether heating had been attended to. We who sit here in this nice warm Chamber—which sometimes becomes too warm—cannot imagine what it means to remain in the guards’ van during the cold winter nights. It will really not cost much to put electrical warmers into the guards’ vans. Then there is still the question of a road bus to Ladismith. I shall continue complaining until a connecting line is built to Ladismith. Dogged does it. There is now an additional reason for improving the position. In the past the line did not pay, but now it does pay, and where once only the two trains used to run a week, there is now a train every day, and every one of the trains is loaded to capacity. But, unfortunately, they are mixed trains, and the people do not want to use them, because they are too slow. So they use their motor cars now. This does not only concern the people of Ladismith, but also the people of Calitzdorp and Oudtshoorn, because it is much shorter to come via our town than to go round to Cape Town by the N.C.C.R. line. If the Minister allows a rail bus to run, the people will make use of it, and it will mean a profit to the administration. I hope that the Minister will inform us that he has now changed his mind, and that he will make the concession, which will be in the interests of the Railways themselves. I think it will pay, but if it does not pay he will at any rate be making a great concession to the public. Then one small point, and it is the nine-hour working day for guards. Years ago an enquiry was instituted with the object of giving everybody an eight-hour working day. Many got it, but while the drivers work eight hours, the guards have never yet got the eight-hour working day. They work much longer, and I hope that the Minister will also go into that matter. It is a fair request.

I would like to refer, for a moment, to the remarks made by the hon. member for Castle (Mr. Alexander) about the graving dock at Table Bay. If he had consulted the Auditor-General’s report on Railway expenditure, he would have seen that the graving dock at Durban, which is one of the largest in the world, has been run at a loss for a number of years of about £78,000 per annum. I can quite understand the caution of the Minsiter in this matter in hesitating before incurring the expense of another graving dock here in Cape Town which would probably increase his nett loss to £200,000. A much larger number of ships call at Durban than at Cape Town, and if Durban cannot make ends meet certainly Cape Town has no hope of doing it. Now I want to refer to a matter which I mentioned last year, and that is the position of the unilingual Railway servants. These are efficient men, as has been proved on many occasions, and men who are constantly temporarily employed in higher positions, but they are barred from promotion simply by the fact that they only understand one language. I don’t care whether the man is English or Afrikaans-speaking, the fact remains that he has been under this disability for many years, he has been barred from promotion, and when he retires has to take a lower position. I want to appeal to every section of the House to alow their sense of fair play to prevail over political expediency in this matter. These men have worked efficiently and conscientiously for many years, and their only bar to promotion is their inability to understand the second language. If these men are efficient they are entitled to promotion, if not, they should not be in the Railway service at all. Many of them joined the service before Union, and entered it with no language conditions attaching to their employment. I appeal to all sections of the House, whatever their inclinations, to advise the Minister that they are agreeable to these men having justice done them. Another little matter I want to mention is the very thick uniform the men in humid parts of the Union have to wear. I suggest the department might look into this matter and see if some lighter material could not be used on the coast, where the humidity is very great. We have lately had some experience in Cape Town with the thermometer at 85, and I ask you to realise what these men have to suffer in their thick uniforms. I ask the Minister to allow his department to go into this matter and see whether lighter uniforms of some grey material cannot be evolved.

I am very pleased to have heard the debate from both sides on the Minister’s Part Appropriation Bill, which deals with £8,500,000. The administration is earning and spending £51,000,000. There are many things to be done, sir, there are wars to be fought, and for that reason I anticipate that the main budget will be very close on £100,000,000 for this year. The Minister as a business man knows that he has to give service and value, he has to give 16 oz. to the lb. and 36 inches to the yard, no more no less. Having been associated with the Minister for a number of years in our commercial life, I expect he is still subscribing to that selfsame principle in the conduct of that big business of the Government comprised in the Railways, to which we have now added Airways, and in the near future we shall add other ways. The Minister of Finance, who sits alongside him, is like myself—an Afrikaans-speaking South African. We did learn one thing, I mean the English language, he with the dialetical skill and knowledge which he commands, while I have only the command acquired through a Free State secondary school education.

And your Scots accent.

Certainly I am associated with Scots people.

You mean associated with Scotch.

I have not been associated with Scotch to-night, madame. The only association I have tonight is nothing less and nothing more than coffee. I am under the influence of nothing but the love of my country and its welfare. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) in his remarks quoted things to which I know the Minister does not subscribe, because the Minister would not lend himself to drawing his department into party politics. He is there to serve the country, as I do. As a licenced general dealer, I have to serve everybody who comes over my storestep. That person who comes over my storestep is my master and dictator and requires from me service and not politics. I would like the Minister, when he comes to his budget proper, to tell us what the sources of his revenue are. It is not only the war effort that he has to see to, but he has to see to the distribution of the trade of the people of South Africa. The Railways, at Union, were given a definite charter, and I can vouch for this, that the Minister is endeavouring to fulfil the obligations which were entrusted to the Railways when we entered Union in 1910. I know he will carry out the policy of giving the best service, and will expect from his employees the best service and value for money. I would like to continue this debate, but I want to assist the Minister to get on with the business, and I will therefore move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 5th February.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this is a short Bill which has been on the stocks for a considerable time. It contains certain amendments desired by the Controller and Auditor-General in the Exchequer and Audit Act. With the exception of clause 4, which corrects a clerical or printing error, the clauses in this Bill all tend to increase the power of the Controller and Auditor-General. I don’t propose to detain the House for long, partly because I think this Bill is entirely non-contentious, and technical at that, and partly because I propose to move that the Bill be referred to examination to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I do so because I think it is the appropriate procedure that Bills of this kind should be examined by that Committee. I don’t think, as I have said, that there is anything contentious in the Bill, but even so I think this is the proper procedure to follow with Bills of this nature. Let me explain quite briefly what is the purport of clauses 2, 3 and 5. Clause 4, as I have already said, corrects a clerical error. Clause 2 etxends the powers of the Controller and Auditor-General in respect of audits in regard to which the Governor-General has given exemption from a detailed examination. At the present moment in departments other than the Railway Department, the Controller has a discretion despite that exemption, to make a detailed examination in regard to the revenues of a department. The effect of this amendment will be to empower him to make such a detailed examination in regard to the expenditure of departments. To that extent, then, his powers are extended. Clause 3 extends to the Auditor-General powers in the matter of calling witnesses and the production of documents. He has these powers in regard to public service departments, but it is not clear that he has them in regard to Railway departments. This clause makes it clear that he has those powers. Finally, clause 5 extends the Auditor-General’s powers in regard to special audits which he conducts under Section 60 of the Act, and which provides that in regard to such audits, the same provisions relating to detailed examinations apply as apply to audits under Section 12. I think the House will agree with me that there is nothing in these proposals to which any exception need be taken, and that the further examination of the Bill may be left to the Select Committee.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. FRIEND seconded.

Agreed to.