When I introduced this motion the time at my disposal was so short that it was impossible to deal with it at any length. I therefore hope I may be excused if I repeat something of what I said on that occasion, and, will not take up much of the time of the House. My object in bringing the motion before the House is to try to remove an anomaly which exists in the South Africa Act, an anomaly which discriminates between Members of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Councillors to the disadvantage of Members of the Houses of Parliament. I refer to section 52 of the South Africa Act which reads—

But Provincial Councillors are specially excluded from the provision of this section as section 72, after saying that the provision of certain other sections shall apply to members of the Provincial Council, goes on to say—

So from this it will readily be seen that while a member of either House, who may wish to contest a vacancy in the Other House must resign his seat in the House of which he is a member, before he can do so, a Provincial Councillor need not do so, and is therefore at the election, able to vote for himself, which gives him an advantage over his opponent. That was the case at the last Election for a Senator. It is not difficult to imagine a case where the one candidate’s vote may decide the issue, in fact I understand that was what actually happened a few years ago. I do not ask that the privilege should be taken from Provincial Councillors, but that members of the Houses of Parliament should have the same privilege granted to them. That, Mr. Speaker, I think is not an unreasonable request, but rather a reasonable one. It is difficult to understand what could have prompted the framers of the Act to include such an anomaly, it rather makes one think that little, if any, thought was given to it. We cannot look to the British constitution for guidance as the position there is different from ours. In Canada, I find the position is that a Senator may not be elected a member of the House of Commons, but, there, Senators are elected for life, and they only have the two Houses but, apparently, a member of the House of Commons may be elected to the Senate. In the Australian Commonwealth the position is as here, and it makes one wonder whether the Union Convention took this as a model and adopted it without giving consideration to the fact that, there, they have only two Bodies while in the Union we have the three, so it does not necessarily follow that what would work satisfactorily in Australia would do so here. There neither candidate would have an advantage over the other, but here one does, and that is what this motion aims at removing. In the Cape Colony, I find that according to Section 72 of the Ordinance of 1853, it is provided—

At that time there was no third body, such as the Provincial Council, and the members of both Houses were elected by popular vote, Legislative Councillors representing Circles, and members of the House of Assembly representing constituencies. As I said before the South Africa Act is not like the laws of the Medes and Persians, it will not be the first time it has been amended, as the necessity has arisen, it has been amended from time to time, and any defects which were discovered were removed. This motion aims at removing one. My motion is quite free of any party bias, all parties will benefit equally by it, and I feel confident that it has the approval of some at least of the members of all parties in the House; the ground on which we meet is common ground. Another advantage which would result from the adoption of this motion would be, if a member of either House were a candidate and failed to be elected, the trouble of a by-election would be avoided. To amend the South Africa Act will be a very simple matter, it can be done by a one clause Bill which, with the consent of the House, could be put through all its stages, with very little loss of time. If we are, what we profess to be, a thoroughly democratic institution, I appeal to the Minister to allow the question to be decided by a perfectly free vote of the House. That, I think, it will be admitted is a reasonable request.

In seconding this motion I should like to say that our Constitution provides that members of the Provincial Council can contest an election to the Other Place and to our House without resigning their seats on the Provincial Council. This motion seeks for this privilege to be extended to members of the House of Assembly during election to the Other Place. Firstly, I maintain that the present provision of our Constitution is a correct one. The Provincial Council is an excellent training ground, and it means that we have experienced men coming to our House without any great inconvenience to themselves. I should like to quote the instance of my own election. I stood for election against a member of the Provincial Council who had been a member for over nine years and I think it would have been a grave injustice if he had been compelled to resign his seat and if he then had had to stand for re-election to the Provincial Council. Now, as regards this motion, nominated members can accept nomination to the Other Place, and then resign their seats, and I appeal to the Minister to make election from this House to the Other Place uniform. I think that will be only fair and just. Why should we not have uniformity? I have always felt that it was a hardship that members who had to be elected to the Other Place should be put at a disadvantage in comparison with nominated members. And this practice would be in keeping with the practice of other countries too. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Col. Wares) stressed the practice in our old Cape Parliament. In New Zealand the Legislative Council Act provides that if any member is elected both to the Council or to the House—if a member of the one House is elected to the other House of Parliament while he is a member of the other House, his seat in each such House of Parliament shall be vacated. You see, here the candidate is first elected before he vacates his seat. That is all we are asking the Minister and hon. members of this House to agree to. The same practice exists in New Zealand as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Col. Wares) stressed. I hope we shall not have a long debate on this matter, and I do hope that hon. members will regard this as a very reasonable motion. I feel it is really more an oversight in our Legislation by the framers of that Legislation than actually their definite intention. I should like to stress again, let all candidates to the Other Place have an equal advantage. Do not let nominated members of the Government have a privilege over those who have to stand for election.

This motion deals with one of the anomalies in the South Africa Act for which there appears to be no reason. As the position is at the moment, and as shewn by the mover and the seconder of the motion, a distinction is made between a member of Parliament and a member of the Provincial Council offering himself for election to the Senate. In the one case, where the individual is a member of the House of Parliament he cannot become a candidate for election to the Senate without previously resigning as a member of Parliament. But a member of the Provincial Council is allowed to be a member of the Provincial Council while at the same time being a candidate for the Senate. There should not be such a distinction. May I just point to the anomalies which are created as a result. An election takes place, and an electoral college of members of Parliament and members of the Provincial Council jointly have to elect a Senator. The member of the Provincial Council, who is a candidate, can sit there and vote for himself, but the Member of Parliament first of all has to resign and is not allowed to vote. The parties at such an election of a Senator have, or are supposed to have, a certain voting strength, but if a Member of Parliament is nominated, the party which nominates him loses a vote, which is unfair. The Member of Parliament should be in the same position and should also be able to be a member of the electoral college just as the member of the Provincial Council. The position as it is now may upset the whole relationship and strength of the electoral college. We know that at a general election of senators the election takes place on the proportional system, but if members of Parliament want to be elevated to the Senate a number of votes are lost if members of Parliament are nominated as candidates. One vote may mean a lot under the proportional election system. I am not a candidate for the Senate and I am speaking without any prejudice or bias.

Do you call it an elevation?

As Langenhoven said it is a drop from bottom to top. I think it is an easy matter and a Bill to deal with the question can be put through without any difficulty. I hope, however, that the Minister will allow me to mention a few anomalies in connection with this matter. There are some other anomalies in the constitution which should be put right. I merely want to mention them without discussing them at any length. Take the qualification required for membership of the Provincial Council, the House of Assembly and the Senate. For membership of the Provincial Council, according to clause 70(2), one has to be qualified to vote at an election. In other words, one’s name must appear on the Voter’s Roll. A case was decided in Natal some time ago and the court adopted the view that the name must appear on the Voter’s Roll. This is not necessary in the case of a member of the House of Assembly. In terms of clause 44 (a) he only has to be qualified to be registered. The same applies in regard to the Senate (clause 26). In Natal a member was unseated as a member of the Provincial Council because he was not on the Voter’s Roll, although he had lived there for twenty or thirty years and his name had only been left off by accident. This is an anomaly which should be rectified. There are other anomalies. There may be some principle involved which I fail to see, but the position is that an elected Senator must have property qualifications. He must have fixed property to a value of at least £500 over and above the bonded value of that property, (Clause 26 (e)), but a nominated Senator need not have any property qualification, nor is such a qualification required for a Member of Parliament. This is an anomaly and I hope that the members of the Labour Party will also support me in getting these anomalies removed. I hope the Minister will, when introducing a Bill, also rectify this point. I fail to understand why a property qualification is needed. It is a remnant of a former century. As a matter of fact no enquiries are ever made into property qualifications. It is a dead letter; nobody is asked to declare that he owns any property. He merely signs that his attention has been directed to the provisions of the Act of Union, but he does not sign anything to the effect that he possesses the necessary qualifications. There is one man today who has been elected although he had none of these qualifications. I know that, but nobody has ever said a word about it. I feel that this anomaly should not exist. There should be uniformity for everyone. There is no reason whatever for differentiating between the House of Assembly, the Provincial Council and the Senate, so far as this point is concerned.

I rise to move the amendment standing in my name op page 185 of the Votes and Proceedings—

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central (Col. Wares) has, I think, made out a very strong case for the amendment of the Act of Union. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) who has just spoken, referred to other anomalies which should also be put right. One quite agrees with him that putting the provincial councillor on the basis that he must actually be a voter, and members of the House of Assembly on the basis that they need only be qualified to vote, is not a sound thing; there should be uniformity. I quite sympathise with the other matters he referred to and at the same time I should like to say if there is going to be a controversy on other matters, I hope that we shall not wait to right the present anomaly for a general measure to have all the anomalies brought together. This particular matter the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) has referred to is, I think, not controversial, and is a matter that can be put right now. The reason for my amendment is that though I think members of the House of Assembly and of the Senate should be put on the same basis, after all, it is for the Senate to express its views with regard to the position of senators. I do not suppose any members of this hon. House will object if senators ask that they be put on the same basis. My amendment deals only with the House of Assembly, and that is the reason why I put my amendment forward. It simplifies the matter. If a similar proposal comes from the Senate asking senators to be put on the same basis, then I do not suppose any of us here would vote against it, but it does seem to me that in a matter peculiarly affecting senators, senators should be asked to make up their own minds. We have every right to see that the interests of members of the House of Assembly on this constitutional issue, are protected. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) has rightly said that the Act of Union has been very often amended. If hon. members will look through the various Acts that have been passed since the Act of Union came into existence, they will find that for the 27 years up to 1937, there were no less than 49 amendments, and different statutes were brought forward amending the Act of Union. There have been half-a-dozen since, so we have had 55 amendments of the Act of Union. That is, the average for the first 27 years was about two a year, and for the last few years the average has gone down to between one and two, and therefore there is no apology to be made for putting forward a proposal to amend the Act of Union. This particular anomaly is one that was brought out very forcibly in connection with a recent election. There is the anomaly referred to by the hon. member for Winburg, which I was going to refer to, that a provincial councillor may vote for himself. He votes for himself and he can influence the voting to some extent, because he has the opportunity of discussing the matter, right up to the day of the election, with provincial councillors. A member of the House of Assembly has not that right. Then when it comes to the constituents, why should they be deprived of the use of their member during that particular time before he is actually elected to the Senate? There is a gap if there has to be a byelection. Surely it is better to leave it until the actual election, and when he is elected he cannot hold his seat any longer. Why make him leave the House of Assembly before he is elected? Why let him go forward and find himself a member neither of the new House nor of the old of which he was a member? His constituents are entitled to be represented, and there is no reason why he should not remain in the House to which he is elected until he is elected a member of another place. The position seems distinctly unfair in that respect. We know at one time—although it does not happen very often now—members used to stand for more than one constituency. I remember the time when Dr. Jameson was elected for two constituencies, and when he was elected he had to give up the one and there was a by-election. The main thing is to take the date of the election, because that is the time when it becomes impossible for him to continue to sit in more than one House; but not until that time. There is no reason why it should not be so. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Col. Wares) referred to Section 72 of the Cape of Good Hope Ordinance of 1853, that very wise statute, which I may say has stood the test of time very much better than many of our statutes. There it was enacted that no member of the Legislative Council shall be eligible for a seat in the House of Assembly, and if any member of the House of Assembly shall be elected to the Legislative Council, the former seat of such member shall ipso facto become vacant. In Canada the position is that a senator shall not be capable of sitting or voting as a member of the House of Commons. That is to say, when he is also senator. The Australian Commonwealth rather extends it and includes the anomaly that we are pleading to remove here. Section 43 of the Commonwealth Act says—

There are many things in the Australian Commonwealth Act differing from ours, and I think on the whole, our present provisions are very much better, except in this particular respect that we are dealing with today. In New Zealand the position is that if any person is elected both for the Council and the House, or is elected a member of either House of Parliament, while he is a member of the other, his seat in each such House of Parliament shall be vacated, i.e., from the date of his election. That is really all that is proposed to be done here. It is an amendment that will take very little time to get through the House, and there will be general agreement on it. It is just one of those anomalies that time has shown is in the way of good constitutional government, and it can be removed by a very slight amendment of the Act of Union. It would not be too late to put it through this Session, because it will give rise to no controversy at all. It is the Assembly member who goes to the Senate much more often than the Senate member who goes to the Assembly. There have been one or two cases in a general election where some of our friends have fallen by the way, and a place has been found for them in the Senate. On two occasions a Minister has found a place in the Senate, and there is a case, I remember, where one of my old friends from Natal lost his seat here and got into the Senate soon afterwards. However, those are very rare cases. As a rule, members do not leave the Senate to come here while they are members of the Senate. The case of a member of the Senate who wants to become a member of the House of Assembly is not one I can remember, because the man who sits in the Senate and wants to become a member of this House, is a very great rarity. Members of this House sometimes want to become members of the Senate, and we have had a number of such cases, but under present circumstances his Party is deprived of his vote, whereas the Provincial Councillor is allowed to vote and remain a member of the Provincial Council until the actual election. I think the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, has made a very sound case for his motion, but I prefer it in the amended form, because I think we will have greater uniformity, and if the Senate follows and comes forward with a similar provision, I have no doubt it will be accepted. In the meanwhile, I think it should be confined to the Assembly. Therefore, I move the amendment standing in my name.

I second the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in support of the motion moved to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Col. Wares), and I think the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) should also be supported. I understand the proposer of this motion is prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the case for this alteration is particularly strong, and I would point out to the House that the National Convention, when they settled the clauses which applied to the election to the Senate and the constitution of the Senate, expressly made those clauses provisional. If hon. members look at Section 24 of the South Africa Act, they will see that that section says—

This Parliament is, I think, fit to alter this arrangement, but obviously the National Convention, when they laid down the rules for the election of the Senate and the constitution of the Senate, only regarded those rules as provisional, and I think this is particularly a case in which the National Convention itself might easily have passed a different rule for the election of members of the House of Assembly to the Senate. Then there is another argument which I think is an even stronger one. Our Senate is unique in the world in being elected by a restricted constituency, and by the system of proportional representation. It is within the memory of those who were concerned with the National Convention that this adoption of the system of proportional representation for the election of Senators was the remnant of a fairly large application of that system to other portions of the South Africa Act. Most of those provisions which were originally included by the National Convention in the South Africa Act — for the use of proportional representation as a method of election—were swept away when the National Convention met for the last time in Bloemfontein. The advocates of proportional representation put up a great fight for the retention of that system, at any rate in some small remnant of the South Africa Act, and this election of Senators was a case in which they were able to retain that system. Now I think experience has proved that the retention of proportional representation as a method of election for the Senate, with a restricted electorate consisting of members of the House of Assembly and Provincial Councillors for the province concerned, has been an unfortunate experiment which might well be swept away. This system, as some of those who opposed it at the time pointed out, is particularly liable to lead to unfortunate arrangements between various sections of the electors for the election of a particular candidate. I will not say more, because I do not wish to reflect on the method of election for the Senate, or on its results, but I would say that the fact that Provincial Councillors need not resign before they stand for the Senate, whereas members of this House have to resign, has the unfortunate effect of being intensified very much by the fact that the election takes place by the system of proportional representation. I agree with the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) that the whole method in the Union Act as to the Senate might well now be subjected to a comprehensive revision, but I think perhaps the time has not come for that. I do hope, however, that the Government will accept this small amendment, which really might be put through in a practically non-contentious Bill of one clause.

Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the House for more than a moment. I support this motion on behalf of my party. Although sometimes there may be some colloquialisms in my own speech, I am something of a purist when it comes to written English, and I think a revision of Clause 52 would be a good thing. My copy states—

That is the reading of the Act. I do not know what the lawyers consider that it means, but I certainly do not understand it at all, and doubt if it is understandable.

“Incapable of sitting.”

It says “if” in the Act. With regard to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) we feel that the disability is much greater with regard to the member of the Senate than it is in the case of the member of this hon. House. There is much greater danger of being beaten at the polls when standing for this House than there can ever be when seeking election to the other; and there is a considerable interval while the election contest is in progress, during which a member of the other House would be subjected to considerable financial loss. That does not equally apply in the case of a member seeking to transfer from this House to the Other Place. Why any member should wish to do that, I am quite unable to state. We have wondered whether the form in which this motion is put does not involve a change in paragraph 26 of the South Africa Act, and the deletion of Sections (a) and (e). The form of the motion is—

There is an age qualification, or disqualification, of 30 years in the Senate. That is their bottom limit, though I understand they have no top limit and there is no objection to members 150 years old. Our other point has already been touched upon by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart). It is the matter of the property qualification. If in the present motion the abolition of the “means test” is involved, the South African Labour Party is doubly pledged to support it, because the property qualification, the requirement that a member must reach a certain standard of material wealth, is utterly archaic and entirely indefensible.

I have also risen to support the motion together with the amendment. I am not doing so because I am so very fond of the Senate, but as we still have a Senate under conditions as they are at the moment we want to improve the position as far as we are able to do so. The impression already prevails among the public that the Senate, composed as it is today, is not constituted entirely on its merits, but that certain people have been appointed to the Senate because they have to be rewarded for work done for the State. In order to remove that impression it would be a wise thing to adopt this motion. If we look at the Senate—I am speaking with all due respect—we find that there are more men there who are well on in years than young men, and I feel that this tends to add to the impression that the Senate is there not as something which is necessary to the State, as was originally intended, but as a kind of favour or honour for people whom one wishes to reward.

I think the hon. member should leave any discussion of the Senate itself out of this matter and confine himself to the motion.

I support the motion because it removes what to my mind is an anomaly which should not exist. There are perhaps people in this House who would like to offer themselves for election to the Other House, but on account of the fact that they have to resign, and the resultant uncertainty, they refrained from doing so. That is wrong. For that reason we on this side have decided to support the motion and the amendment. We may also have the reverse, that a member of the Senate would be more useful in this House. For that reason we also support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this has been an interesting discussion on a constitutional point of some importance. I could not help feeling during the discussion that I was almost in the Senate. We have discussed this matter in a calm and peaceful and dispassionate atmosphere, which is somewhat unusual in this hon. House.

You do not know how soon it may be your turn.

I may say I have a very great affection for the Senate. When I am there I feel like the mariner coming into a land-locked harbour after the storm and stress of many days at sea. It has a courteous atmosphere, where you can have your say without interruption, and I have a very great personal regard and affection for the Senate. I am not suggesting that I have any ulterior object or aspirations at the moment in regard to the Senate, but quite apart from personal feeling, I do feel that the Senate is an institution—it has been referred to this morning—which plays, has played and will play a very vital part in our constitutional system. There was in days gone by a commission which enquired into the Senate system, and there were suggestions at one time that we should abolish our dual system; abolish our Upper House. I am not one of those who believes in that. I believe the Senate is serving a very constitutional purpose, and it must be retained.

You used the word “institution.”

A revered and esteemed Parliamentary institution. It may seem old-fashioned to be a believer in Parliamentary institutions in these days, but I am heartened by what fell from the lips of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) yesterday in his condemnation of dictators. The Senate is a vital part of our system. In the course of this interesting debate, hon. members have dealt not merely with the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Col. Wares) but have referred to other anomalies in connection with the election of members to Parliament, and the Provincial Council, and the Senate. Certainly I think it is true that there are these anomalies, but we are concerned today only with the specific proposal made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central. I had hoped that today the House might be able to get some guidance from hon. members like the hon. member for Cane Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens (Mr. Long), who were members of the old Cape House, and who through their long, deep Parliamentary experience might have been able to shed some light on the reason for the National Convention making this distinction between aspirant candidates from the Provincial Council to the Senate, and from the House of Assembly to the Senate, but they have not been able to do so. I have had investigations made into the literature of the time, in the library, and I cannot find any statement indicating what actuated the framers of the constitution in drawing this distinction. But this I can say, that they must have had very good reason indeed for making so deliberate a distinction. The very fact referred to today by the introducer of the motion, and others, that in the old Cape Parliament members of the Lower House were not obliged to resign before submitting themselves for election to the Legislative Council, seems to indicate that the framers of the constitution must have considered or borne in mind the possibility of perpetuating such a system. They had the example of the old Cape Parliament immediately in front of them. Members of the National Convention knew that system. They had come through that system, and yet with that immediately in front of them, they decided in their wisdom—those wise framers of our constitution—as a result of lengthy careful deliberation, that there should be this distinction. Well, it is true that the Act of Union is not the law of the Medes and Persians. It had been altered, but I think before we tamper with the constitution on any one point, there must be very grave reasons for so doing, and the Government, after considering this matter regretfully does not feel prepared to accept the motion, and deal with this matter on a piecemeal basis.

Will you deal with it on its merits?

I will come to deal with that in a moment. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the discussion this morning has shown that there is perhaps at the present time need for a revision not merely of any one specific provision, but possibly of a certain number of provisions of our constitution, and in consultation with my department, I will consider the advisability of having such an investigation made. It might, for instance, be advisable to set up a judical enquiry, a judical commissioner, who away from the arena of party politics can deal with this matter on its merits. This is a matter which so peculiarly concerns members of Parliament and Senators that there is the danger that in considering it will allow our personal feelings and viewpoints to shape and colour our conclusions. It was at that time possible to consider the framing of this Act in a clam, dispassionate atmosphere, but if there is to be any change in our constitution at the present time, e must create the necessary atmosphere to make those changes. In regard to the merits of the proposal, first of all I do not think that the point made by the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, is quite relevant. The hon. member said that the National Convention specifically made the provisions relating to the Senate provisional, and he referred me to Section 24 of the Act. That Section provides—

Then it proceeds to set forth the constitution of the Senate, and admittedly that was provisional for ten years, but we are dealing today not with the constitution of the Senate, but with the qualifications for membership of the Senate, a different matter altogether, and so I think the point the hon. member made about the provincial nature of the provisions does not apply in respect of qualifications. Then, sir, we must not forget that Parliament is a different body from the Provincial Councils. Provincial Councils are subordinate bodies. Parliament consists of the House of Assembly and the Senate, and it may well be that the framers of the constitution felt that before a person became a member of either body, he must make up his mind of which body he wishes to become a member; he must not play fast and loose with one or the other body. If this proposal of the hon. member is approved and given legislative effect, it would mean that 153 members of this House, if they so wished, could submit themselves for election to the Senate at any election.

After the description you have given of the Senate, I can understand that.

The whole spirit of election to the Senate would be altered. It is pointed out to me in a departmental memorandum, which I think I should read to hon. members for their interest, that Senate elections are also conducted in an infinitely more peaceful atmosphere than those for Assembly elections, with a degree of decorum and dignity never experienced in the latter.

It sounds like Shakespeare or Chaucer.

There is no doubt that the atmosphere in a Senate election is much more calm and unruffled than that in an ordinary election or a by-election for the House of Assembly. We have a different electoral system. In the Senate you have the Electoral College formed by members of the House of Assembly and members of the Provincial Council, and members of the Senate do not submit themselves to the whims and wishes of the electorate as a whole. As I say, the whole system is different, the atmosphere is different but if we are going to throw open the gates and allow every member of Parliament to submit himself, there may be considerable jockeying and lobbeying, and other elements may enter which are not present at the present time. I mention these things as arguments that may be raised, and may have influenced the framers of the constitution when they drew this deliberate dinstinction. I am giving considerations which must be borne in mind before such a change in the constitution as suggested is made.

This motion asks the Government to consider the advisability, not to change it.

The hon. member knows that as a matter of Parliamentary practice, if the Government now accepts this motion, it is tantamount to an assurance to the House that it will proceed to legislate along those lines, and I am not prepared to give that assurance to the House without the knowledge that I can carry it out. But I do feel that there is room for enquiry into this, and a number of other matters raised by other hon. members, and I can give the assurance that I will ask my department to proceed along the lines of such an enquiry, and we can then deal with the various points raised by hon. members—such as for instance the point made by the hon. member for Winburg. He points to this anomaly that a Provincial Councillor submits himself for election to the Senate, but he has not to resign his position in the Provincial Council. He also is a member of the Electoral College, and can vote for himself. A member of Parliament who submits his name for nomination must resign. Having resigned, he cannot vote himself, because he is not a member of the Electoral College. That certainly is an anomaly, but whether the remedy lies along the lines suggested in this motion, or whether the remedy is to place Provincial Councillors in the same position as members of Parliament, is another matter. As I say, there is certainly an anomaly. I fully agree with the hon. member, but it does not follow necessarily that this is the best way to deal with the matter. This is a matter which should have consideration.

What about the qualifications?

The hon. member for Winburg raised a number of matters not strictly germane to the proposal before the House, namely, the difference in qualifications for election to the Senate, and the Provincial Councils, and to Parliament. Those are matters which should come under revision. The hon. member has drawn my attention to Sections 26, 44 (a) and 70 (2) of the Act, and from those sections it appears that a person may not submit himself for election to the Provincial Council unless he is qualified to vote. In other words, he must be on the Voters’ Roll. But the framers of the constitution have used different language in respect of the House of Assembly and the Senate. The relevant Sections are 44 (a) and 70 (2) which stipulate not a qualification to vote, but a qualification to be registered. In other words, apparently a person who is qualified to be registered may submit himself as a member for Parliament, or as a Senator. To translate that into practice in terms of our Election Laws, any adult European in this country may stand as a member for Parliament or for election to the Senate, because any such person is qualified to be registered; he need not actually be on the Voters’ Roll. But no person may submit himself for election to the Provincial Council unless he is qualified to vote. That is to say, he must actually be registered. There is an anomaly, but again that question and the consideration and the solution of the question, is not germane to the issue before the House at the present time. It is very relevant to a general and comprehensive and co-ordinated review of these matters as a whole. I am glad the matter has been raised in this calm and helpful atmosphere, and I regret I have to reject the specific proposal of the hon. member, but I hope he will appreciate the spirit in which I have done so. I feel that nothing but good can result from this discussion.

I cannot say that the arguments used by the Minister against this motion have impressed me. He put the question whether the National Convention in its wisdom had laid down this particular provision. It is quite possible that that is so, but it may also have been due to an oversight. Anyone who has a little practical experience of the making of laws knows that one can make an Act as good as one likes but as soon as one starts applying it in practice one invariably finds that there are certain points where it fails. That is the general rule, and it is quite possible that that is also the case here, that the Convention, when framing the South Africa Act, made a mistake, or overlooked this point, not because of a lack of wisdom, but simply because they made a mistake in passing this particular provision. The Minister further said that he admitted that this was wrong but that he wanted to have a Commission go into the question. Can we have a better Commission than this House to decide on a matter of this kind? Can the Minister get anyone with greater experience of this subject than the members of this House? Surely we should know something about it. His argument that 153 members of this House may offer themselves for election to the Senate does not hold water. All of us who are not novices in politics know that the decision as to whether a particular individual shall go to the Senate rests with the Caucus of the Party to which he belongs, so that argument also falls away. Then the Minister said that there were other matters as well which had to be gone into; but these points have been referred to by a Body which is thoroughly well informed, so why should we not take the advice of that Body? I feel that the amendment is not as good as the motion, and I want to tell the House what my reason is for saying so. If the motion is given effect to and is embodied in a Bill, that Bill is dealt with by the Other House as well. If the Other House is dissatisfied with a part of the Bill which affects them they can delete it. After the argument which has been adduced here I am quite satisfied to support the motion.

Mr. Speaker, the discussion on this motion has travelled rather far from the motion itself. I feel grateful to hon. members on the opposite side of the House for the support which they have given to this motion. It convinces me that the majority of members here are entirely in agreement with the motion, and after listening to the reasons given by the hon. Minister for not being able to accept the motion, and act on it now, I do not feel entirely convinced that the attitude taken up by the Government is what one might call a reasonable one. While I always feel disposed to be loyal to the Government, and while I also feel disposed on the advice of some of my supporters, to ask leave to withdraw the motion, I do want to say this, that if I do that it is only on the distinct assurance from the Minister that the investigation to which he referred, will be held. I would not be prepared to withdraw the motion if I felt that there was going to be any unreasonable delay in going into the whole question of the anomalies, which exist in the South Africa Act. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) has pointed out several. I was quite aware of those anomalies, but I did not wish to confuse the matter by referring to them in my motion, and I feel quite confident if this matter went to the free vote of the House, and all the members were present, the majority would be in favour of it. But if the House has a definite assurance from the Minister that this matter will be enquired into, that there will be no unnecessary delay and that effect will be given to it, and that such anomalies as exists in the Act will be removed—

Yes, certainly. I give the assurance that an enquiry will be held.

And that no time will be lost in holding the enquiry, no unnecessary time.

It will have to take its priority.

Here again it makes me feel just a little nervous over the whole question, because I must say I have not very much confidence in departmental enquires into matters of this kind. It generally takes a few years to complete such an enquiry. But I take the Minister’s assurance that there will be no time lost, and having that assurance, I ask the leave of the House and of my seconder, to withdraw the motion.

objected.

When we were discussing several of these amendments the other day, the hon. member for Durban, Point (Dr. Shearer) did not seem disposed to accept certain of them. My one amendment concerning a name was under consideration. I do feel that it is a very serious defect in the frist clause of this Bill that it merely provides that the City Council of Durban may establish, maintain and conduct a savings department to which it may have attached a housing section, and that this is going to be a separate department entirely with separate books, although this Bill assigns no name to that department. Having regard to this and to the Minister’s amendment in which he wishes to simplify the wording of the subsequent clauses, I wish to withdraw the amendment I proposed the other day, and substitute another amendment.

The hon. member should ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Then I ask leave to withdraw that amendment.

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

I move a new amendment—

That will attach a specific name to this venture, and it will provide simplification for the wording of the subsequent clauses, without repetition of the full name of the society. I can recall, Mr. Chairman, that this House established a steel works. They gave it the name of the South African Iron and Steel Industrial Corporation. Not long ago we established a further institution, which was called the Industrial Development Corporation. The House by an Act of Parliament established a Commission to supply power to this country, which was called the Electricity Supply Commission, and by the same token I feel that this new baby in Durban should be given a specific name and that it should be christened.

You do not want the baby to be born at all.

No, we are not stopping it from being born, but we do want it to have a name when it comes into the world. This is bringing something specific into existence, and it should have a name. The name of any organisation is an important factor, because it becomes known throughout the length and breadth of the land by that name. I submit that if this House is going to bring this baby into the world, it should give that baby a name. I hope in the circumstances that the hon. member for Durban, Point (Dr. Shearer) will accept this amendment.

I rise to support that amendment. It seems to me that it is not in any way frivolous. I think it is very essential if Durban is to be permitted to have a building society. Its accounts and books will be kept separately, and I can see danger of a great deal of confusion if it has not a name which will distinguish it from the transactions of the Durban Corporation itself. I think that this is a matter of importance, and that this building society should have a name to distinguish it from the Durban Corporation itself.

There is a further point in this clause which I think is weak. This clause gives a permissive right to Durban, not an obligatory right, to establish a housing section. I do submit that if Durban exercises its rights to establish a savings bank, it should then be obligatory on Durban to establish a housing section, and that it should not be permissive. We have heard so much about the fact that this Bill was going to give Durban a solution to its housing problem. We have heard so much about what Durban can do in the way of buildinghouses, and particularly houses for the section of the population which is not so fortunate as another section. But I do notice one thing right through this Bill, and that is that wherever it comes to putting a sixpence into a housing scheme, the Durban Corporation has no obligation whatever to put that money into housing, and I want to move a further amendment now to make it obligatory on the City Council to establish a housing section, if they do elect to establish a savings department. That is the purport of my amendment, and I think that it may be suitably done in the following way: I move—

The clause will then read: “The City Council of Durban may establish, maintain and conduct a savings department, and for that purpose and in addition to its existing powers in that behalf receive deposits and pay interests thereon, and in that event shall establish, maintain and conduct a housing section” etc. I move this amendment, and I do not think there is any need for me to say anything further about it. I think I have made myself clear.

I am not quite sure whether the amendment which stands in my name, and which I moved on a former occasion, is going to obstruct the amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell).

Both amendments can be put.

I have also moved to omit a certain portion of the clause, but I do not want it to obstruct the amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove. With the leave of the House, therefore, I withdraw my amendment.

Both amendments can be put, but if the thon. member, with the leave of the House, wishes to withdraw his amendment, he may do so.

I should like to hear from the Minister of Finance how he regards this matter before we proceed any further. He has had ample time to think the matter over, and if he will tell the House what he thinks of my suggestion to omit all the words after “thereon” and substituting certain other words, it would clear up the position considerably. May we ask the hon. Minister to enlighten us on that point.

This is not my Bill. This Bill is now in the possession of the Committee, and it is not for me to reply to questions such as the hon. member has put. The hon. member for Durban, Point (Dr. Shearer) is in charge of the Bill. I am simply here as one member of the House, but as far as I am concerned I do not consider my amendments to Section 1 necessary, other than that which I have moved, and personally I shall therefore vote against all the other amendments which have been moved.

The hon. Minister says that he is satisfied with Clause 1, apart from the amendment which he is moving. The amendment which he is moving, does not affect Clause 1 in the slightest. It is merely to simplify the drafting of subsequent clauses. This Clause 1 gives the Durban Council the right to establish a savings department and to accept money on deposit and to pay interest thereon. It authorises the Council to establish a housing department and it lays down that this housing department will be established for the purpose of dealing with advances on freehold land and buildings. The Minister is going to bring quite a substantial change into the Bill in Clause 6. He wants to provide that collateral security can be used to enable a further amount to be advanced. He furthermore wants to provide that moneys can be advanced upon the security of depositors’ deposits.

The hon. member cannot discuss principles under the Bill; he must discuss the clause.

I want to ask the hon. Minister whether in the circumstances these further avenues for investment will be available when advances are to be restricted in this way, because I have a further amendment to move on this aspect, and I will do it in the circumstances. I move—

That has already been moved.

I thought that was an amendment, but I was under a misapprehension the other day, because the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) moved “or other securities which may be considered trustee securities.” I want to move this amendment, so the clause will then read quite simply. That advances may be made “upon the security of freehold land and buildings and other securities hereinafter referred to”. The securities will be confined to securities which will be hereinafter referred to and with which the Minister has dealth at some length. I move this amendment because I think it is essential to have that one point clarified.

May I be allowed to speak on the second amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell), touching the permissive clause because I understood the Minister of Finance to say he is satisfied with the amendment he has moved but I would like to point out that here is a Bill which is actually permissive. I am sure that no member of the House wants to force the City Council to form a building society, if it does not want to. I would like to point out that it is possible that the Durban Corporation may establish a savings department and not proceed with its housing section. Then I ask, what is the Durban Corporation going to do with the money it receives on deposits? This is a question which I consider should be dealt with by the promoter of this Bill.

I object to the masterly silence which is being maintained by the hon. member for Durban, Point (Dr. Shearer). He should answer these queries and give the House information on these points. I may say that throughout this Bill he has been quite silent on the whole matter. I object strongly. We must have some information before we can pass these amendments.

I also do not like the hon. member’s silence on this point either. The main object of this Bill is to establish a housing section.

I just want to explain firstly in regard to the amendments which have been moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell). I made my position perfectly clear when last time we debated this question. That is in regard to the name of this Bill. Now, I should like to say in regard to the second amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove, where the amendment suggests that it shall be obligatory as against permits, save for the Municipality, to establish a building section, I would just point out to the hon. member that I think it would be unfair and unreasonable to make this section obligatory because it is possible, particularly in times such as we are going through, that the Municipality should find considerable difficulty in establishing a section of this nature. For various reasons—there may be a lack of material, it may be that the price of material is too high—and there may be other reasons relative to building costs. So I think in that respect we should leave the section as it stands. In regard to the other question, the question of advancing money on freehold land, buildings and securities—the hon. member wishes to insert the word “security”. If the hon. member will amend his amendment to read, “Or securities”, I think that will be acceptable. But as the amendment stands now the implication is that the Municipality can only advance money on freehold land, on buildings and securities together. I shall be prepared to accept the amendment if the hon. member will make it read “or”.

May I be permitted as one of the opponents of the original Bill, to say that I feel that the amendments proposed by the Minister of Finance are such that they will make the Bill acceptable to most hon. members? This is a non-party measure, and we are anxious to meet the difficulties of hon. members who want this measure passed. Our difficulties have been met, and I have much pleasure now in stating that I am prepared to support this Bill. Now, the mover said that he would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove if he would amend “and” to “or”. Now, this question of securities is a matter which we raised before, and I am sure that if that provision is included we shall be able to accept it. I want to make that perfectly clear as a Durban member, and I want to say that I am now prepared to support the Bill.

I think the hon. member for Durban, Point (Dr. Shearer) will not be well advised to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) with regard to the insertion of the words “or securities”. May I point out that if the amendment is accepted it will mean that the Durban Corporation will be entitled to advance money on land or buildings or other securities. In other words, the Durban City Council would be entitled to advance money, for instance, on shares or life policies, or any other securities of that nature, which are provided for in Section 6 of the Act. I think the Committee will agree with me that that will defeat one of the safeguards of this Bill. It will enable the City Council of Durban to advance money on securities, and it will completely destroy one of the principles of the Bill. I would urge my hon. friend for Orange Grove not to press his amendment, but to abandon it, because it would be most disastrous.

I have no desire to introduce anything in this Bill which will enable the Durban Corporation to lend money purely on securities, but I felt that the word “securities” was qualified by the words “hereinafter referred to”. I accept the statement of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) and I withdraw my amendment.

With leave of the Committee the amendment proposed by Mr. Bell in line 37 was withdrawn.

In regard to the amendment making it obligatory on the City Council to establish a housing section, if there is no obligation to establish that housing section, what are they going to do with the money? There is no provision for the use of the money in any other direction. It simply means that they are going to establish a savings bank without a housing section. According to the amendment tabled by the Minister of Finance, one would conclude that they may not establish a housing section. Then what are they going to do with the money? Is it going to lie idle?

May I just say that while I quite appreciate the hon. member’s point of view, I must point out that in another section of the Bill provision is made as to the manner in which portions of the money may be invested. If the hon. member will look at that he will see for instance that they must invest not less than 25 per cent. in securities. Now, if the Municipality did not invest that money in gilt-edged securities, because the clause provides that money invested in gilt-edged securities must not be less than 25 per cent. As a matter of fact they can invest their money up to 60 per cent. or 65 per cent. in gilt-edged securities.

The cat is out of the bag.

Don’t let it go; catch it.

Speaking on Clause 1 and the obligation to establish a housing section, may I say that what I had in mind was to restrain the investments. The purpose of the Select Committee’s amendment was to restrain the City Corporation of Durban from investing more than 25 per cent. in gilt-edged securities and to force them to invest the balance in housing. Now the object of the Select Committee is cut away altogether. The Corporation can now invest 95 per cent. in Municipal loans, if it wants to. If the City Council can receive deposits and become a lender to other municipalities then I must oppose that aspect of the Bill.

The remaining amendments proposed by Mr. Bell and the amendments proposed by Mr. Neate and Mr. Gilson were put and negatived, and the amendment proposed by the Minister of Finance was put and agreed to.

I have certain amendments here. In two cases I propose that we omit “Council” and substitute “department”. That is a drafting matter for which we have prepared the way by the amendment in Clause 1. Then I have another amendment in line 38. The net result of that will be that the Department will have to have fixed deposits of at least a twelve months’ period equivalent in amount to call deposits. The whole purpose of this is to ensure liquidity in meeting obligations. We have to watch against the possibility of an institution of this kind going too far in the direction of borrowing short and lending long. And from the point of view of security, therefore, it seems valuable that a provision should be made such as contained in these amendments. I propose that these amendments be adopted; they will have the effect of laying it down that there should be an quivalent amount of twelve months fixed deposits to twelve months call deposits. I move—

Is the change from three months to twelve months because the Minister envisages a similar change in the Building Societies Act?

It is being considered.

This seems to extend the minimum period rather considerably. In regard to this period too, as there is a maximum period in the Building Societies Act, I want to ask if he will not insert a maximum period by adding such words as “not more than three years”. That will bring this Bill into conformity with the Building Societies Act. The Minister has moved that a fixed deposit shall not be for less than twelve months. Well, I should like him to move also that it shall not be for more than a certain period. That is a feature of the present Act, and I suppose that it will be embodied in the new Act.

Why are you moving it?

I am asking the Minister to move it.

What are your reasons?

I think they are very sound. The Building Societies are limited in the maximum period for which they can take deposits, and it is not sound to allow too long a time, especially with the position as it is now. The savings department may be landed with deposits over a long period of years. They may take deposits for seven, eight or nine years, during which interest rates may fall, and I think it is advisable that the Minister should keep the same principle in this Bill as exists in the Building Societies Act.

What is the maximum?

At present the minimum period is three months and the maximum two years. I am suggesting that the maximum period should be changed from two years to three years, or whatever period is envisaged in a new Building Societies Bill.

I do not think there is really much gained by fixing a maximum period for fixed deposits; I think that is a matter which we can quite well leave to the Department itself, and I may say the question of abandoning the maximum in relation to building societies is also now being considered.

We are told that it is undesirable to borrow, but the underlying idea in a municipal savings bank is that it should provide a repository for the moneys of the small man. I think if the Municipality is allowed to have a building society and a savings bank, freedom should be allowed them to manage the thing as they think right and proper, without restrictions of this kind.

The hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) is away, and he has asked me to move his amendment. Am I in order in doing so, sir?

The hon. member can move it on his own behalf.

I therefore move the amendment standing at the top of page 150, in the name of the hon. member for East Griqualand. I do not propose to move the first part relating to the words “resident in Durban”; it is the second part that I wish to deal with, providing that the Council “shall not either from its own funds or from any funds under its administration deposit any moneys in the said department”. The object of this amendment is quite clear, because the object of this savings department is to provide an avenue for smaller people to invest their money in.

To provide for housing.

The hon. member for Durban, Point (Dr. Shearer) told us that that is not so, that the savings department ought to be established, irrespective of whether the housing section is going to be established or not. If the Council should have surplus moneys the object of this amendment is to make it impossible for them to invest that money in the savings department. I think that is a worthy object, and I hope it will be received sympathetically by the House. I move—

I am not quite clear in regard to the hon. member’s argument. The amendment states definitely that the Council will not be entitled to deposit any of its money in this department. He says that the hon. member who introduced this Bill stated that the main object of the Bill is not to provide for additional housing. On the contrary I accepted that that was its main purpose, and that is why we supported it. We are not prepared to support any Bill merely for the creation of a savings department in Durban, but we are prepared to support a Bill where there is a definite stipulation that the money will be used for housing. According to the hon. gentleman’s amendment, the Council will not be entitled to deposit any of its money consequently it must logically follow that if there is a shortage of funds for housing purposes, the Council will not be able to deposit any of its moneys in that fund for housing purposes. If that is the object of the amendment, I cannot support it, because we must encourage the Council to utilise as much money as possible for housing purposes, and if it is necessary to secure that object, to deposit municipal funds in the savings department. That should be permitted. If the hon. member’s object is to prevent that, I am afraid I cannot support his amendment.

The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) says he is not prepared to support a savings department, the main object of which is not to supply housing, but in the other clauses, there is nothing to ensure the establishment of a housing department. That is one of the major weaknesses of the Bill, and that is the reason why I moved one of my amendments in Clause 1 to make it obligatory on the Council to establish a housing section. The hon. member for Durban, Point (Dr. Shearer) has said that they might not be able to establish a housing section, and there is no obligation in the Bill to put one sixpence into housing. We hear a great deal about the lack of facilities for investment, and that the people of Durban are anxious to invest in their own corporation’s savings department. Now I submit that it will defeat that object entirely if you are going to allow the Durban Council to deposit any sums whatever—they may be globular sums—that are available, and I think to allow such to be deposited is wrong. Let them keep the savings bank open as an avenue for the small investor. For that reason I feel I am justified in moving that amendment.

The amendments proposed by the Minister of Finance were put and agreed to, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Bell was put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

I move—

The purpose of this amendment is of some importance to the Bill. When the Bill was first drafted by the Council, it provided that they could not accept deposits for the savings department, except within the limits of their unexercised borrowing powers. The Select Committee negatived this and provided that the deposits must be limited to £2,000,000, irrespective of whether the City Council possessed the unexercised borrowing powers or not. I believe the reason for doing that was that the Durban Corporation had substantial borrowing powers unexercised running into from £6,000,000 to £8,000,000. The object of my amendment is to limit the Council to borrowing within the balance of the unexercised borrowing powers with a maximum of £2,000,000. I feel that is reasonable, and in the interests of the people of Durban. It is particularly sound in view of a later clause in the Bill, which provides that the security for depositors is augmented by the rates and taxes of Durban.

I believe the borrowing powers of the City Council are controlled by the Provincial Council, and intereference with this, as suggested in the Bill, has the makings of a first-class row between the Central Government and the Provincial authority. In regard to this amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell), I cannot see how that is going to effect the object sought. The understanding was that the City Council wanted to accept deposits up to their unexercised borrowing powers, which at that time stood at £6,500,000. The Select Committee limited that to £2,000,000, and I think that is a reasonable amount to entrust to any city council for this purpose.

My hon. friend seems to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The Durban Council must simply keep a sufficient amount unexhausted of their borrowing powers to cover the amount of deposits in the savings department.

This alteration made by the Select Committee met that position. The Council asked for deposits up to their remaining borrowing power, which was then £6,906,000. Owing to the opposition in Select Committee that was reduced to £2,000,000. The hon. member now apparently wants to limit still further the activities of the Savings Bank. I propose to move an amendment to his amendment, which is to omit the word “lesser” and substitute “greater”. That would mean that if their borrowing powers are exhausted, they can still borrow up to £2,000,000. It is a perfectly safe proposition, because, as the hon. member himself pointed out, under Clause 8 the security for the deposits is furnished by the rates and other revenues of the Municipality. According to the evidence led on the Bill, the rateable value of property in Durban is £51,000,000.

It is not a question of security.

If it is worth while giving these powers at all for the benefit of the public, it seems to be unreasonable to restrict them in the way the hon. member wants. I move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell)—

It seems to me that this clause, as amended by the Select Committee, is bound to be interpreted to mean that the Corporation can borrow from depositors an amount of £2,000,000 in excess of their unexercised borrowing power. I understand the amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) seeks to ensure that they will only borrow £2,000,000 within their unexhausted borrowing power.

The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) seems to be under a misapprehension as to my intention. There is no intention to limit the amount which can be deposited in the savings department. Provided the Durban Council keeps £2,000,000 unexercised of their borrowing powers, they can accept deposits up to £2,000,000 for the savings department.

No. That is what the Council does not want.

But my hon. friend, the promoter of the Bill, says that is not so. Surely he is putting’ a foot right into it, because when they first came here they were prepared to borrow as much as their unexhausted borrowing powers amounted to. Depositors are secured by the rates, rents and other revenue of the city of Durban. I am not questioning the security offered to the depositors in this matter, but I do feel that my amendment is a safeguard as far as the general taxpayers of Durban are concerned, because the general revenue is liable as security. The people who are paying the rates must have some protection, and that is simply the object of my amendment.

We have already agreed to delete words proposed to be deleted by the Select Committee, and to retain the words “a sum of £2,000,000.” We cannot therefore, if I may say so, add now to that the words “or the sum of £2,000,000, whichever is the lesser.” The amendment therefore drops.

The amendment proposed by the Select Committee was put and agreed to and the amendments proposed by Mr. Bell and Mr. Wilkens were put and negatived.

I wish to move an amendment as printed in my name on page 150—

In the first place, as in the case of the previous clause, I desire to substitute the word “department” for council. Then there is another small amendment on page 53, and then I want to delete the last two lines and substitute certain words, so that the clause shall read as follows—

As the clause stands in the Bill at present, there is a limitation only in respect of fixed deposits. Again I want to repeat that the object of this amendment, as of all others, is to ensure the liquidity of the department, and to take adequate precautions, so that it will be able to meet demands upon it in times of difficulty.

I congratulate the Minister on this amendment which draws the attention of the House to a bad weakness in the Bill. I want to ask the Minister why he has fixed the limit of fixed deposits at £10,000 in his amendment. We have all along been given to understand, rightly or wrongly, that the object of the Bill was to enable the smaller man to deposit his money. The hon. member for Durban, Point (Dr. Shearer) has made it clear this afternoon that there may be difficulty in establishing a housing department. If there is that difficulty, there may be difficulty in employing the money taken on deposit. I think it highly necessary that the amount that can be put into fixed deposit by anybody should be limited to a reasonably small amount, otherwise it will be possible for a certain few to flood the department with a considerable sum of money, and by so doing to exclude the opportunity for the small man to invest his savings. I ask the Minister to reduce £10,000 to, say, £2,000, so as to ensure that there will be a large number of small depositors, rather than a small number of large depositors. It will be quite possible for a man to deposit £10,000 in his own name, and £10,000 in the name of his wife, and I submit that that is rather defeating the original object for which this Bill was introduced, and I would ask the Minister to give that point consideration.

One of the reasons given for establishing this savings bank department was that the building society had ceased to be the repository of the savings of the small man. Now, if the Council is to be allowed to take large deposits in the same way as building societies do, where is the advantage to the small man? There is one aspect of the amendment I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. It was stated previously that the Council would be able to transfer some of its moneys to the savings department in case they have not sufficient for housing. The deposits under the amendment are to be restricted to £10,000, and is the Council a “person” as described’ in this amendment, and therefore restricted to £10,000?

I think the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) has perhaps overlooked the fact that in a previous clause we accepted an amendment which laid it down that there shall be the same amount held on fixed deposit, as is held on deposit at call. The object of that was to ensure liquidity, and to prevent a large amount being held on deposit at call. The number of call depositors will always be larger than the number of fixed depositors, and in practice the department would find it very difficult to comply with the conditions imposed on it by the amendment to Section 2, unless we allowed a larger maximum for fixed depositors than for call depositors. I therefore propose that the maximum should be £10,000, but hon. members will have noticed that I added the proviso that no more than £2,000 of money on fixed deposit shall be repayable to any one person in any one month. The purpose of that, of course, is to spread the amount of the liability of the department, and again to protect it against the risk of too heavy calls being made upon it at a time when it may be inconvenient for it to meet those calls. I think, on the whole, the basis suggested in regard to the limitation of fixed deposits, represents a fair compromise.

I appreciate the point the Minister has made in respect of call deposits. I had this aspect in mind when I suggested that fixed deposits be limited to £2,000 as against his maximum of £1,000 for call deposits. I do not know what the relative ratio is in actual practice between call and fixed deposits, but from the point of view of the Minister, his ratio is ten to one. The fact that only £2,000 is repayable to any one person in any one month, does not make it any more difficult for a person to put on fixed deposit a very large sum, because the £2,000 can be repayable for a consecutive period of five months. I do feel that the maximum of £10,000 for fixed deposit is too high.

Would the Minister consider adding to his amendment a provision excluding building societies or trust companies, from the limitation in regard to deposits. I feel that it would be helpful if the Minister would allow that amendment.

I quite agree with what my hon. friend here says, but I would like to limit other large Companies, so that you cannot have big bodies coming along making substantial deposits and flooding the savings department with money.

The suggestion by the hon. member for Durban, Point (Dr. Shearer) would have the effect of allowing building societies and other similar bodies to invest unlimited amounts. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) has apparently not understood the suggestion. I am very hesitant about agreeing to anything like this, certainly at this stage. It is a point which might receive further consideration at the report stage, but I am hesitant about allowing that maximum to be waived in respect of any of these organisations.

I fully agree with that.

I have heard the remarks made in regard to the amendment to this clause, and I am still not satisfied that the amendment will protect the fixed period depositors and prevent the small depositors from depositing their money. The whole trend of the discussion hitherto has been to the effect that they want to help the small depositors, and if these people can deposit large sums of money even with the £10,000 limit, there will be very little margin left for the small depositor, and I do think that this is a matter that is worthy of careful consideration.

I still would like enlightenment as to whether the City Council is to he regarded as a person and whether it is to be subject to the same restrictions in this respect.

That is a legal question on which my hon. friend in charge of the Bill might be prepared to enlighten the hon. member.

I have an amendment to move to this clause also. It is printed on page 150, and hon. members will doubtless already have read it. It implies the deletion of the word after “currency” to the end of the clause. The word currency is in line 4, page 4, and the effect of this amendment is to ensure that there will be all the necessary publicity when rates of interest payable on deposits at call are changed. I may say that we are taking similar action as far as the building societies are concerned. I move—

On the motion of Mr. Bell, the Chairman put the amendment proposed by the Select Committee in lines 59 and 60.

I move as an amendment to the amendment to omit “of Natal”.

Why?

Because it seems hardly necessary in the body of the Bill to specify it in full, when “Administrator” is to be defined later in the Bill as the Administrator of the Province of Natal.

I agree.

It sounds as though there is a little hope of this amendment being accepted. I would like to congratulate the Minister on his amendment. He is improving this Bill considerably by his amendment, and I think we will see this Bill emerge a much better one yet.

May I draw the attention to the hon. Minister to a portion of his amendment where it states—

As the Minister will be aware, there is no Afrikaans daily newspaper in Natal, unless you get an Afrikaans paper from the Transvaal.

I am not prepared to take cognisance of a fact which is not a fact. My hon. friend apparently means that there is not an Afrikaans paper published in Durban, but that does not mean that there is not an Afrikaans paper circulating in Durban.

I see certain dangers in notification in the Press. May I ask the hon. member to delete these words entirely and to let us have a direct communication to the depositor himself. You may have people who are unable or unaccustomed to reading notices in the public Press, and I think where you have your depositor specified and can therefore obtain direct personal communication, that you should take that procedure. It is advisable that they should know precisely if there is any change in the rate of interest.

My amendment does provide that in the case of any reduction in the rate of interest, each depositor must get notice. I do not think it is necessary to require that every depositor should get notice of a change in the rate of interest, other than a reduction.

Clause 6 deals with the investment of moneys deposited, and Clause 7 deals with the investment of funds. I wish to make a proposal which implies that both Clauses 6 and 7, as now appearing in the Bill, shall disappear and be replaced by a new clause covering the whole position. This new clause will in effect combine in an amended form the provisions of the existing Clauses 6 and 7. In order to make that possible, in order to enable me to move the new clause which is printed on page 150, I wish to ask the Committee to negative Clause 6. If that is done, then I shall move the new clause.

I want to move an amendment on the amendment of the hon. Minister of Finance.

May I now move the new Clause 6 as printed on page 150, which I think I need not read. I think it explains itself. I would just like to say that in fixing the amount which must be held readily available, we have taken account of the provisions of the building societies, and we have also allowed for the fact that building societies have to hold a portion of their working capital in deposit and fixed period shares. While the same does not apply in the case of the department, we are proposing rather a higher percentage here. I want therefore to move this new clause as printed here, except that one word has by accident been left out. In paragraph (a), in the third line from the bottom, there should be added the word “any”. It will then read—shall not invest any portion of such deposits in any stocks, debentures, bonds, bills or certificates of the Corporation, or retain any portion thereof for the purposes of the Corporation. I move that the following be a new clause to follow Clause 5—

1. (6) The deposits received by the department pursuant to the provisions of this Act shall be invested in one or more of the following forms of security and in no other manner, that is to say—
   1. (a) not less than 25 per cent. of the aggregate of the amounts received by the department on deposit, including interest accrued thereon and not yet repaid, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 23 of the Building Societies Act, 1934 (Act No. 62 of 1934), hereinafter called the principal Act: Provided that a further amount of not less than 5 per cent. of such aggregate shall be held and kept in cash or upon deposit, withdrawable upon demand in a bank approved by the Registrar; provided further that The department shall not invest any portion of such deposits in any stocks, debentures, bonds, bills or certificates of the Corporation, or retain any portion thereof for the purposes of the Corporation;
   2. (b) the balance thereof shall be invested in—
      1. (i) advances by way of first mortgage to any person for the purpose of erecting, improving, adding to or purchasing a dwelling house within the city of Durban on freehold land and upon the security thereof: Provided that no such advance shall be made to any person who does not satisfy the Council that he is not the owner of any other dwelling-house suitable for his occupation, and that he intends to occupy personally the dwelling house in respect of which the advance is applied for: Provided further that the maximum amount advanced on any one property shall be limited to £2,000, and that the Council shall always give preference as between applicants for advances, to the applicant in good standing for the smallest amount, and/or
      2. (ii) loans to depositors upon the security of their deposits.

I wish to move an amendment on the new Clause 6, as moved by the hon. Minister of Finance. I move—

The intention of this amendment is to prevent non-Europeans from purchasing houses in European areas. I do not think it is necessary to elaborate on the amendment. I think it will be clear to the Committee. The object of the second amendment is to enable the Bill to provide for that section of the population which is in the most urgent need of housing, and that is the small wageearner. I think it is only right, where facailities such as these are granted, that they should only be granted to those people who are not in a position to purchase expensive houses. I think the figure of £2,000 is too high, and I think that £1,500 is ample. A person who can afford £1,500 is usually a person who earns up to £40 a month.

I want to rise on a point of order, to ask for your ruling as to whether the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) is in order. My submission to you, Sir, is that it certainly cannot be introduced by way of an amendment in Committee. It might be done by way of instruction, but I submit not. However, it is not necessary for me to argue that. The amendment in effect introduces a new and important principle into the Bill, not contemplated by, and outside the scope of the Bill as read a second time. This Bill confers upon a statutory authority, that is the Durban Municipality, certain additional powers. The Durban Municipality only derives its powers from statute, and the effect of the Bill and of this clause would be to increase those statutory powers. As agreed upon on the second reading, one of the powers given to the Durban Corporation was the power to make advances from certain funds which it was entitled to receive or deposit under the conditions laid down in this Bill. In the exercising of that power, the ordinary principle applicable to public authorities in the exercise of discresionary powers would apply; in other words, in making advances it would be under a statutory duty to consider making advances on their financial merits. Under the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg that principle would be entirely changed. They would only to a limited extent have to consider applications for advances from their funds, on their financial merits. They would also have to consider certain types of applications according to the race of the applicant. It is a well-established principle of our law, that a public authority in exercising its statutory powers, requires special authority when such exercise is tantamount to a discrimination between one section of the public and another. This Bill provides for advances to be made on their merits. An entirely new principle is in my submission introduced by this amendment, that is that applications will not be decided on their merits but in relation to the particular race of the applicant for the loan, and on that account I submit that this amendment introduces a new principle and is not competent to be introduced at this stage of the Bill.

I do not agree with the last speaker. I think that this is already provided for in the Bill—the principle of discrimination. The Bill provides that there will be a discrimination between one borrower and another. If the amendment of the hon. Minister is accepted, it will provide that that borrower who wishes to purchase a house above a certain figure, will be discriminated against. Secondly, the principle of discrimination is already embodied in the Bill and in addition to that the Council will in any case have to discriminate in the granting of advances. The Council will have to discriminate where there are certain provisions in the title deeds against that particular borrower. You will find that the title deeds of a large number of properties contain provisions against occupation and purchase by coloured people. I contend therefore that it does not mean the introduction of a new principle. The principle of discrimination is already embodied in the Bill, and this is merely an elaboration of that principle.

In order to ascertain what the principle of the Bill is, in other words, what was decided at the second reading, it is permissible to look at the preamble. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) made the point in reply to my contentions, that the principle of discrimination had already been introduced under an amendment by the hon. Minister of Finance, limiting the amount that can be advanced to any borrower. Now, sir, the preamble of the Bill which was passed at the second reading, reads as follows—

In other words, the preamble as passed by the House at the second reading specifically provides for discrimination in relation to amounts; it specifically provides for discrimination between classes of borrowers and classes of depositors, in relation to the amount that may be lent, and the amount that may be borrowed, and therefore the hon. member’s point falls away, because he was referring to a form of discrimination which was expressly approved at the second reading of the Bill. May I emphasise that the type of discrimination to which the hon. member for Fordsburg referred, was discrimination as to an amount whether on deposit or loan, and that was expressly approved at the second reading. The hon. member made a second point. He said—I take it he meant it to be a matter of general knowledge—that there were properties in Durban, the title deeds of which prohibited non-European occupation and ownership. Under the ordinary and general principle, if the funds of this department were advanced for an illegal purpose, that is, something that the Court could restrain, so if the position in Durban is as the hon. member says, then in any event his object will have been attained under the existing title deeds. If there is any purpose in the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg, it is to extend the provision beyond what the existing title deeds refer to, and I therefore submit that that falls away, that the principle is that a public authority has to exercise its discretion, in relation to the applications made by the public, on their merits. They cannot discriminate between one section of the public and another. That was what was decided at the second reading of the Bill. The only types of discrimination permissible were the types of discrimination set out in the preamble. The hon. member for Fordsburg now wants to introduce an amendment to confer on this department a power to exercise discretion on an entirely different criterion, a criterion that is not to be found in the preamble, and that was not decided on at the second reading. I therefore submit that his amendment is out of order.

You will remember, Sir, having been a member of this House for a great many years, that some 12 or 15 years ago a Draft Bill was laid before this House, called the Class Areas Demarcation Bill. That Bill proposed to allow the Government or possibly the municipal authority to demarcate certain areas exclusively for non-European occupation, and to demarcate other areas exclusively for European occupation. That Bill never went any further; there was such an agitation that the thing died. With respect to the hon. member for Fordsburg, it does seem to me that the intention of this amendment of his is for the city of Durban—and to the limited extent which the Bill would allow it to be done—to re-introduce that Class Areas Demarcation Bill. This is an attempt by a side-wind to bring about segregation.

Are you opposed to it?

Yes, of course I am opposed to it. If we are to adopt in this country a principle of segregation, let us discuss it on its merits. But I do suggest to you, Sir, that this amendment is an attempt by a side-wind to introduce this principle of segregation in the city of Durban. I think the hon. member for Fordsburg will probably be candid enough to admit that. It is certainly the effect of his amendment. May I say I agree with the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) who has raised this point for your consideration, that it goes right beyond the scope of this Bill. This Bill is to establish a savings department and to promote a housing scheme, but to suggest an amendment of this nature that you can get the House to give its approval to the whole principle of segregation, is something, Sir, which in my submission goes far beyond the scope of the Bill. I hope that you will feel able to rule it out.

I concede the second point that the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) made in regard to the illegality of advancing money where there are difinite prohibitions in the title deeds against occupation by coloureds. But the first point that he made, viz. that it is specifically stated in the preamble what discrimination shall take place—and the hon. member quoted at length that the powers will be defined more particularly in respect of the various matters—I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this does not confine the powers of the Council to the particular matters mentioned in the preamble. It leaves it open to further discrimination. It states very definitely—

The principles contained in the preamble do not preclude any additional powers of discrimination being conferred on the Council. I contend that my amendment is quite in order. I repeat that the whole prinicple of discrimination is embodied in the Bill. Discrimination takes place in the case of one taxpayer as against another.

Not racial discrimination.

Under this power the Council will still be enabled to make racial discrimination although it is not specifically mentioned in the Bill. I maintain it is not outside the scope of the Bill or in conflict with the provisions to introduce this amendment.

The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) relies upon the preamble to meet my argument. The words “more particularly” refer to the powers that are necessary to conduct a savings bank with a housing section, and in any event it is a well-known principle of interpretation that when a general power is given and is followed by the words “more particularly,” and certain specific powers are stated, that is interpreted and would be interpreted if it ever came before the court, as limiting it to the powers specifically mentioned after the words “more particularly.” However, sir, this is a difficult point and it may require more consideration. I shall therefore move—

I move—

I wish to move the following amendment—

1. (a) To have justice done to officials in the service of the Railway Administration who have been unjustly treated in regard to promotion; and
2. (b) to put an immediate stop to any form of compulsion to enlist for military service and pressure exercised upon officials to contribute towards war funds”.

I am moving this amendment on the third reading of this Bill because I have put a motion on the Order Paper for the discussion of a particular matter in this House, but as the Order Paper now reads there is very little chance of our ever being able to discuss that motion. For that reason I have withdrawn the motion and I am now moving it in the form of an amendment to the motion for the second reading. There is a feeling of deep disappointment today on the Railways among Afrikaans-speaking officials. Throughout the length and breadth of the Railways there is a feeling of dissatisfaction today. There is more than that. There is indignation among the Afrikaans-speaking members of the Railway staff because they feel that they are deliberately being manoeuvred out of promotions which they are legitimately entitled to. The people who are senior and who expect to be promoted are being moved out through the manipulation of grades, and other people are put in their places, and those other people then get the promtions and the appointments that are going. The manipulation of grading has developed into a fine art on the Railways. If an official has to get promotion his post is moved up or down in accordance with the wish to keep the Afrikaans-speaking officials out and in order to get English-speaking officials into key positions. There is not the slightest doubt about this. Let me give some instances, and if the Minister can deny that this is a fact then we should like him to tell us so. The position is that the Afrikaansspeaking officials feel today that they are placed in an inferior position in the Service. They are treated as though they are inferior, and they feel that they are the victims of the vindictiveness of certain highly placed senior officials in the Railways. It speaks for itself that as we have a Railway Service in which there are thousands of Afrikaans-speaking officials, those people are highly indignant, and thoroughly dissatisfied with this crying injustice to which they are subjected. It can be understood that they regard it as an insult. There are even English-speaking officials, men who have a sense of fairplay and justice, who admit that manipulation with Railway positions does take place, and that grading up or down is arranged in such a way that it only has one object, namely, to keep the Afrikaans-speaking people out of certain posts. I can come to no other conclusion but that there are certain senior officials in the Railways, men who have the power, who act with blind racial prejudice against Afrikaans-speaking officials. These facts which I shall go into afterwards began to make themselves felt prominently during the past few years. The position became so serious that certain members of Parliament went to Pretoria with me to interview the Minister of Railways. Unfortunately he was overseas at the time, and I thereupon submitted our complaints in black and white. Probably the General Manager has supplied him with all the information and he afterwards sent us his reply. In that reply everything is denied, and the Minister argues as though there has been no victimisation or differentiation. For that reason we are compelled to place the matter before this House and before the country so that the House and the country will be able to judge whether victimisation and discrimination have not taken place. We can get the answer from the Minister and if he gives us that answer we shall know what the position is, we shall know whether there is any concerted action against the Afrikaans-speaking Railway officials, yes or no. I also want to say this, that shortly after the present Minister of Railways was appointed as Minister I went to speak to several Afrikaans-speaking officials on the Railways and I asked them what the Minister’s attitude was towards the promotion of Afrikaans-speaking officials, and I can say that they were unanimously of opinion that the Minister would not allow the slightest discrimination, and that racial consideration did not weigh with him. I was very pleased to hear this. The Minister will remember that the first year after his appointment we paid a tribute to him in this House because the Afrikaans-speaking officials on the Railways were thoroughly satisfied. It must be perfectly clear therefore that the fact of our criticising him here today is not due to his being English-speaking, or to his belonging to a particular Party. When he saw to it that justice was done we praised him for what he did. I want to remind the Minister of the fact that he has placed a heavy burden on the Railwaymen. In following the Government’s policy to get as many Railwaymen as possible to go up North the Minister got inexperienced people, girls and pensioners, to take the places of these other people who had gone on service, and as a result the Railwaymen who had stayed behind had to work twice as hard in order to handle the increased traffic. I want to remind the Minister of the fact that on one occasion he paid a tribute to Spoorbond, of which thousands of Afrikaans-speaking people were members, for the loyal manner in which that body supported the Administration, and did their work to the best of their ability. Most of those people differ politically from the Minister, but they are officials of the State, and as such they did their duty faithfully and loyally; often they did very much more than their duty, and they worked many hours overtime because the assistants they received were in many cases inexperienced in Railway work. And now what has the Minister’s reply been to the loyalty of these people in his service? Spoorbond is an organisation which the Minister thanked for its loyal service. Suddenly, however, the Minister turned round and in a most inexplicable manner, without the slightest reason, he decided to destroy Spoorbond. This organisation was almost a hundred per cent. organisation of Afrikaans-speaking Railway officials. It was the largest society in the country, a society of which the Railwaymen were proud, and the Minister has now tried to destroy that organisation. That was the first thing that happened. Secondly, a malicious spirit suddenly arose on the Railways, a spirit which treated the Afrikaans-speaking section unjustly so far as its promotion was concerned. I am sorry that I should be compelled to mention names here, but I am afraid I cannot help doing so because I do not wish to make just general allegations. I want to produce proof of what I am saying. It is peculiar that this new spirit on the Railways, this spirit of oppression of the Afrikaans section, coincided with the appointment of the present General Manager of Railways. It is peculiar that it is so. I find, according to the information at my disposal, and I can say that my information is reliable—and if there is anything which is not the Minister can call my attention to it—I find that there is a movement on the Railways to secure certain key positions for certain English-speaking people, not for all English-speaking people, but for certain English-speaking people, certain people in the confidence of highly placed officials, and the way in which it has been done constitutes the most reprehensible method we have ever had in South Africa. Let me begin by mentioning one post. This is the position of the Secretary of the Railway Service Commission, to which is attached a maximum salary of £1,200. The man appointed to this post therefore must be a man with a good knowledge of railway matters; he must be a responsible man, a man able to do the work. Now, what happened? The salary attaching to this post was brought down to £735. Hon. members will at once ask why this post of £1,200 was brought down to £735. And this was the object: A certain Mr. Hopkins, a relatively junior man in the Service, had been selected, and he had to be pushed into this key position, into this important key position. That is why the post was brought down to £735. Since Mr. Hopkins was appointed to the post it has been put up again to £840 maximum, and Mr. Hopkins has been put up with it. We can expect that month by month, and year by year, the post will me moved up until it gets back to £1,200. That manipulation has taken place because the General Manager wanted this man in that post, and the result has been that other people who were entitled to that post have been passed over, and I say that this is reprehensible discrimination on the part of the General Manager of Railways and its senior officials. There has been a manipulation of grading with a view to keeping certain people out and getting specific English-speaking persons in. The Chairman of the Railway Service Commission is a certain Col. Hamilton. The members are Mr. Rosher and Mr. Stuart. We can see quite well what the intention was. Now, a man like Mr. Hopkins is pushed into the key position of Secretary of the Railway Service Commission, and in future it will be quite easy to manoeuvre the grading of posts, so that certain Afrikaansspeaking people in the Railway Service can be kept out of certain posts. Now, I first of all want to deal with the case of Col. Leverton. His salary was £1,050, and that went up to £1,200. In January, 1940, he was appointed Manager of the Road Motor Services, although he had not the slightest experience of it. He was up North at the time, but he was promoted to this post to which a salary of £1,400 was attached. He did not come back to take up his post; he received his promotion and his increase, but other people had to do his work. He did not do the work. The move, however, had to be made, because it was to be the preparation for a subsequent step. It was a step to another appointment. While other people were doing his work he received this promotion and this increase of salary. In August of last year the next step in the promotion came about. He was then appointed Parliamentary Superintendent, which is an important post. Now, he suddenly came by aeroplane from up North to fulfil this important position, but then trouble arose. The Colonel did not have a sufficient knowledge of Afrikaans to enable him to fill the post, and a plan had to be made. The result is that henceforth there will be two Parliamentary Superintendents—there had to be an Afrikaans-speaking one to carry Col. Leverton, and Mr. Toerrein was thereupon appointed as his junior. Col. Leverton, however, continued to be the Chief, and his post was raised to £1,600. We see therefore how he has gone up, from £1,400 to £1,600. But the remarkable thing is that while this position was increased, the work of his office was reduced. The senior clerk was taken away from the office; the senior clerk was taken away and another person as well. The Colonel was thereupon Chief of this office, with less than six clerks, a few translators, and a few typists. The work was reduced, but the grade was raised. And what was the object of that? The fact is this, that the Administration manoeuvred here in order to get a certain official into a key position. It is stated—and I cannot vouch for the truth of that statement, but I have been told that the General Manager has told his friends, that he is going to get his friends so well fixed in certain posts that nobody will be able to get them out of those posts. But let me explain this to the General Manger and to the Minister of Railways, that no matter how well dug in these people may be, when this side of the House comes into power they will be pushed out of those posts. I shall make it my business to see that these people who are promoted irregularly do not reap the benefit of those promotions. Now I come to other people in the Railways, and I want to deal with one of them who has played a big part, namely a certain Mr. Timperley. Within two years he went up from £1,200 to £1,600. He has now been appointed Chief Assistant Staff or something of that kind. In any case, within two years his salary increased to that extent so far as the maximum is concerned. Then there is another man in the Railway service whose name is a terror to Railway workers. He is a certain Lt.-Col. Booker, Chief of the Railway Health Services. This gentleman pokes his nose into all the Railway activities, excepting the health service for which he is responsible. In every department of the Railways he has his own small department which keeps him informed. I should like the Minister to inform us what part this gentleman has played during the past few years? On every Commission of Enquiry appointed by the General Manager Lt.-Col. Booker is a member. He is the confidant of the Railway General Manager, he is his adviser, and he plays about and intrigues on the Railways, just as much as he likes. Let me give a few instances. He demands that the inspectors in physical culture take the red oath. He asks the welfare officers whether they have ever been members of rhe Reddingsdaadbond, whether they have ever had anything to do with the Reddingsdaad, whether they associate with friends who have relations in the Army, whether they have friends or relatives in the Army, and other questions of that kind. If he finds that such a person has no friends in the Army, or does not associate with people who have relations in the Army, or that such a person has had anything to do with the Reddingsdaad then a black mark is put against his name. We can see the way this private Gestapo of the General Manager sets about its work in connection with these people. If this Lt.-Col. puts a black mark against the name of an Afrikaans-speaking employee of the Railways, that employee has no chance of promotion. He behaves in this impertinent manner in putting questions to Afrikaners of the kind I have referred to. It is clear he hates the Afrikaner and despises him, and I say again that Lt.-Col. Booker’s name is a terror to the Afrikaner on the Railways. His attitude towards the Afrikaner, the steps he takes against him—all these things are having a most detrimental effect. If he has anything against an employee of the Railways that employee knows that he has no chance. This is a fact, because Lt.-Col. Booker has his subordinates who all assist him. In this connection I want to mention Capt. Shutt. In 1935 he was getting £600, but during the past twelve months his promtion in the Railway service has been a lightning one. In April he went up to £750 and in November to £840, and I now hear that he is getting £1,050. He even acted as System Manager in East London. He is one of those who was promoted in this way. Then there is Lt. Giffen, who is chief of the Private Gestapo of the General Manager of Railways. He is the author of those secret letters which are sent to the various departments to find out whether there are any so-called subversive activities going on. I have been assured that Lt.-Col. Booker and Lt. Giffen and all the khaki knights are co-operating in sending information to this Gestapo of the General Manager of Railways. If Lt. Giffen gets any information it is put under the magnifying glass, the family registers of Afrikaners are gone through, and if there is only the slightest thing which makes him think that they can have anything to do with subversive activities those people are at once marked. All nominations for promotions in the Railways are sent to Lt. Giffen and he investigates to see whether there is not a black mark behind the man’s name. If he can find out anything that person is damned and cannot get any promotion in the Railways. He is not given any reason why he is not promoted, he simply has to be satisfied. Perhaps he may be given some vague reason, but not the real one. And that is the reason why junior Railway officials are promoted over the heads of other people and why some people jump up from £540 to £750. Now, I want to say a few words about the promotions of a few Afrikaans-speaking people in the Railway Service. In the office of the General Manager there are two superintendents of staff. The maximum salaries of each of these used to be £1,200. Some time ago the English-speaking people were moved up to £1,400, but the Afrikaans-speaking people remained on the salary they were on. I mention these facts to prove that there is differentiation. We have two posts here, both of which stood at £1,200. The salary of the English-speaking incumbent of the post was increased to £1,400, but the Afrikaans-speaking (Mr. du Plessis) remained at £1,200. In the Head Office in Johannesburg there is also a running superintendent, and at Durban and Cape Town there is a similar post of the same grade and the same status with a maximum salary of £1,200. There are three such posts. But Mr. Carter, who occupied the post in Johannesburg, had to be promoted. If he had been appointed System Manager, an Afrikaner would have taken his place, and it would have been possible for a number of Afrikaans-speaking people to be promoted. Now, what are the tactics that are followed, and how are things manipulated to prevent an Afrikaansspeaking official getting the opportunity of being promoted as a result of Mr. Carter becoming System Manager? To prevent this happening the post is raised to £1,400. But it is the same post, of the same importance as that in Durban and Cape Town, but the latter two remain as they were. Now, it is said that Johannesburg is the most important post of that kind, that it is the biggest post and the biggest centre, and that that was the reason why the post had to be raised. What happened? Immediately after it had been raised Mr. Carter was taken away and the post which was so important that it had to be occupied by an individual of ripe experience in administrative and traffic matters—that post which had to be raised to £1,400 so that somebody with considerable experience could be kept there, that post is now filled by a comparative junior, a certain Thiel from South-West Africa, who knows nothing about the administrative work in Johannesburg, and his maximum is fixed at £840. The post was raised to £1,400 in order to prevent an Afrikaner from getting it, and then a junior named Thiel was brought in and his salary was fixed at £840. He had no experience of the system in Johannesburg. He came from South-West and he occupied that important post. And then they still have the temerity to tell us that there is no discrimination and that the grading up to £1,400 did not take place merely for the purpose of keeping out an Afrikaner. The Railway Administration should feel ashamed of having done a thing like that, and then to contend that it is not so. I have been told—I was only told so today—that Mr. Carter’s appointment as System Manager, Kimberley, has now been confirmed. Now, let me quote a letter which the Minister sent to me on the subject of promotions: In this letter he gives the order of precedence of the Seniors, giving Mr. Bromley, Cape Town, who left the Service today, as the first; Mr. du Plessis, Superintendent Staff, second; then Louw and Von Willich; then Grant, and finally Carter. Carter is No. 6 on the list and Du Plessis is second. Du Plessis occupies the position of Staff Superintendent, but Carter is appointed as System Manager at Kimberley, if my information in regard to his last appointment is correct. What a wonderful lot of manipulation! What a magnificent system to do an injustice to the Afrikaner! The General Manager and his senior officials are out to do an injustice to the Afrikaner, and to insult the Afrikaner, and we find today the most palpable evidence of discrimination and victimisation on the Railways. Now, I come to another instance, that of two inspection engineers. Those two posts are entirely equal. They are posts of £1,600—the maximum salary is £1,600. One of those posts become vacant and the nominations come in, and it is found that the individual who, because of seniority and experience, is entitled to the appointment, is Afrikaans-speaking—Dr. Von Abo. It turns out that he has a black mark of Giffen’s Gestapo behind his name, so the position has to be manipulated, the grade has to be manipulated in order to keep him out. Now, what did the Minister write to me? He writes me that the General Manager has recommended that the grade of the post should be temporarily reduced in order to allow of a larger choice, and to make it possible for an official possessing the necessary training and experience to be appointed. The qualification has to be experience of inspection engineers’ work. Consequently, the status of the post is reduced so as to enable a junior official to be appointed and to enable a junior official to get promotion. I have made some enquiries into Dr. Von Abo’s career. As a student he had one of the most brilliant careers. He passed his examinations with distinction and during his career as a student he stood head and shoulders above all the others as an engineer; and even English-speaking officials in the Railway Service assure me that he is one of the most brilliant engineers in the service. With this record, with this ability at their disposal, the Railway Administration steps in and deliberately and consciously reduce the post in order to be able to keep out an Afrikaner. Let me say this to hon. members over there—the wheel will turn. If such an injustice had been committed against English-speaking people there would have been a tremendous outcry on the part of hon. members opposite—there would have been no limits to their indignation; they would have protested emphatically against anything like that being done, in order to keep English-speaking people out. But if an Afrikaans-speaking individual is concerned the benches opposite are empty; they take no interest in it. They take more interest in the double salaries they draw. Let me say this: that the Government can continue to do this injustice to Afrikaners, but the day will come when the wheel will turn and we shall again have the power in our hands. Let me mention one more case. This is the case which concerns the appointment of an Assistant General Manager. That appointment was made purely on racial lines and this is one of the most flagrant cases of injustice to Afrikaans-speaking people in the Railway Service. Over the heads of five of his seniors Mr. Chittenden was selected and appointed to the position. Of those five, four were Afrikaans-speaking and one was English-speaking. If one hears the reasons adduced by the Minister, the reasons which caused the Railway Administration to act as they did, one really has to laugh at the childishness of the excuses put forward. They say that Mr. Loubser and Mr. Wilson principally had had experience of the engineering side and that for that reason they could not be appointed. They were Mr. Chittenden’s seniors but their experience mainly was on the engineering side. Mr. Watermeyer, a former General Manager of Railways, also was an engineer. He was such a competent General Manager that when he reached the age limit he was asked to remain on from year to year.

His predecessor also was an engineer.

Yes, I believe that what my friend says is correct, but now that is made a reason to keep those two people out. But there are another two men who were passed over, namely, Brain and Von Willich. And what is the excuse put forward in their case? That Von Willich and Brain were engineers by profession. But they had been System Managers for years and they had had a wide experience as such. Yet they were turned down because they were engineers by profession; that is why they could not be appointed as System Managers. But Mr. Ritchie was appointed in Durban as System Manager. He had had no experience in a System Manager’s office; he had been an engineer. He was competent enough to be appointed in Durban, but an Afrikaner had to be kept out. Two seniors had to be passed over simply because they were engineers by profession. And yet another individual was left out—Mr. Heckroodt. And how did they pass him by? The others I have just mentioned were all seniors, but now we come to Mr. Heckroodt. What did they say when comparing Mr. Heckroodt with Mr. Chittenden? They said that these two in turn were senior to each other, but “generally speaking Mr. Chittenden was the senior as far as commercial posts, as far as catering manager and publicity and travel manager were concerned.” That is all he had done in the Railway service, so far as senior posts were concerned. And for that reason they said that he was more senior than Mr. Heckroodt. Now, what are the facts? Mr. Heckroodt was appointed in the Railway Service in 1908, and Mr. Chittenden in 1911, so Mr. Heckroodt is three years Mr. Chittenden’s senior. In passing I want to point out that the present General Manager of Railways entered the Railway Service in 1914. Now, I want to challenge this General Manager and the Minister of Railways. I asked the Minister what are the duties of an Assistant General Manager (Commerce), the post to which Mr. Chittenden has been appointed over the heads of other seniors. The Minister’s reply was—

1. (i) General—tariffs and claims—staff, health and welfare—police and investigations central housing, Magazine and Tender Board;
2. (ii) He has to supervise the following departments: Accounting, Magazine, Catering, Air Service, Publicity, Travel and Sick Fund.

Those are the duties of the Assistant General Manager (Commerce), and I say that Mr, Heckroodt has had experience of all that type of work. I say that he has done all that work. There is not a single one of the branches falling under the Assistant General Manager with which Mr. Heckroodt is not familiar; there is none of that work which he has not done. But what is Mr. Chittenden’s position? He has had experience of publicity and of traffic management. In 1925 he went to London, and he remained there until 1935. He was out of touch with the Administration in South Africa, and he knew nothing about the developments in the Administration in South Africa. He was publicity agent in London, and afterwards he occupied the position of Manager there. Those are the qualifications which are specially mentioned in his case, on the ground of which he is able to occupy the important post of System Manager (Commerce), passing over Mr. Heckroodt and the other seniors. In a few years’ time he will go off on pension, and the position today is that the Railways do not want any passenger traffic. To all intents and purposes they are advertising in order to induce people not to travel, but Mr. Chittenden is appointed because of his special qualifications in regard to publicity and travelling, and then he also has experience of catering.

I suppose that is why the food is so bad on the Railways today?

Probably. But I want to say this: Strangely enough, if one compares Mr. Heckroodt’s qualifications with the experience of the present General Manager, one finds that they have had the same experience. The present General Manager has occupied the same posts, and has had the same experience as Mr. Heckroodt, and yet the General Manager is of opinion that Mr. Heckroodt does not possess the necessary qualifications to enable him to become Assistant General Manager. Mr. Heckroodt still is one point up. He is at the moment Chief Traffic Manager in the Railway Service. Yet he is being held back. The present General Manager never reached that post. He was Chief Accountant all the time, while Mr. Heckroodt occupied a higher position, as Chief Traffic Manager. A man with better qualifications and greater experience than the present General Manager becomes Mr. Chittenden’s junior, and Mr. Chittenden is appointed over his head as Assistant General Manager (Commerce). This is one of the most flagrant cases of injustice in the whole service. An electric shock passed through the whole of the Railway Service, and there was a sense of deep indignation at the fact that an Afrikaans-speaking official was put back in this way. [Time extended.] I shall not occupy the time of the House much longer, because I hope other members possessing other documents will show up the actions of the General Manager further. I want to mention one more case. In Durban an Afrikaans-speaking man is not allowed to be appointed today as Chief System Manager. We have had Mr. Brain there for years; he was suddenly taken away, and put back in the position of engineer, and Mr. Ritchie was appointed in his place, though he is also an engineer. Mr. Brain protested emphatically. He had an interview with the General Manager and with the Minister and the Railway Board, and he put up a plea to be allowed to stay in Durban. He pointed out that the post to which he was being sent had been occupied by a junior who had served under him and that he was now going to take the position of his own junior. He said that it was an insult to be appointed to that post, that it was degrading, and would give him a bad reputation in the Railway service, as he was being moved from a senior post to a junior post. He was thereupon told by Mr. Whiting that they would meet him financially, by raising his salary by £200. He said that he did not want the money and insisted on remaining in Durban. Here in Cape Town we have Mr. Bromley. He has been offered promotion repeatedly, but he has refused to accept it. It is a well-known fact that in the Railway Administration officials have the right to refuse promtion. Mr. Bromley is a well-known example of this fact and he remained here in Cape Town, he is leaving the Service today or tomorrow. But an Afrikaansspeaking man has at all costs to be kept out of Durban. This is a stigma on the Afrikaner; there is discrimination and there is vindictiveness against Afrikaans-speaking people. I do not believe that the Minister is allowing these things to happen of his own free will. I believe that pressure is being-brought to bear on him and I want to urge that he must see to it that the two races are treated alike. Only on that basis can we have peace and co-operation. Only if the Afrikaans and English-speaking people are treated equally and justly, also in regard to promtion, can we have peace. If the Minister pursues a policy of discrimination at the expense of the Afrikaans-speaking people in the Service I say that our Railway officials will not submit to it. There will be a tremendous protest and the Minister should take that into account. For the sake of the good co-operation between the white races I ask him to bear this in mind and to see that justice is done to the Afrikaans-speaking people in the Railway Service.

It is a great pleasure to me to second this amendment. Before proceeding to deal with other matters I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood) has said about the manipulation of posts by the Minister and the General Manager for the purpose of assisting their friends into good positions. I want to mention the case of the Secretary of the Railway Board. There was an Afrikaner, Mr. Toerrein, who was promoted. The maximum salary attached to the post was £945, but in order to give the position to a certain Purvis, and in order to allow him to be considered for the post, it was reduced to a maximum of £735. Hon. members may perhaps ask how I can possibly contend that the post was reduced for the purpose of enabling that person to get it. I say so because shortly afterwards they again raised the salary and they put the maximum at £840. Was somebody else appointed to the post then? No, Mr. Purvis remained. They manipulated things in such a manner that the maximum salary was brought down from £945 to £735, because only by brining it down in that way could it be brought within reach of Mr. Purvis. After that they raised it again. In that way this person was able, within a comparatively short time, to rise from the position of senior clerk with a maximum salary of £615 to a position carrying a maximum salary of £840. This Mr. Purvis had been trained as a soldier and he actually was up North. They were unable to find any properly qualified man in South Africa among the whole of the Railway staff! They had to get this man to come to the Union by aeroplane to take over this post. Does the Minister want to tell us that there was nobody here able to fill that post? I am quite prepared to mention names to him. But as the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District has said, our experience is that if one dare mention names in this House and if one mentions an Afrikaner, under the present General Manager of Railways the individual concerned is victimised. I want to admit honestly that originally the Minister made a very good impression on me. Some of my Nationalist friends came along and said jocularly: “Now we have a Minister who is an Englishman,” but I said it was not so; I said that he was a fairminded man and I said that I expected him to act fairly and as a just business man.

Hear, hear.

I wish I could feel that the hon. Minister does, but after my experience I cannot say so.

Are you disappointed now?

Very. I don’t want to refer here to what happened to Spoorbond. To begin with, the Minister could not speak highly enough of this staff, organisation, but subsequently he went out of his way to destroy it. But I want to revert to what he said in this House in reply to a question by the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) in regard to unilingual officials. He then said that as long as he was Minister he would do nothing to undermine in any way the principle of bilingualism which had been adopted on the Railways. When one hears that one gets the impression that he was a fair Minister of Railways, but we know what happened afterwards, and there is one thing we learnt, and that was that the Minister says certain things, but acts very differently. One hears the voice of Jacob, but one sees the hand of Esau doing the work. That is the experience which we have had in regard to Spoorbond. Now, I want to ask the Minister, arising out of his statement, that he had no intention of allowing the principle of bilingualism to be undermined, whether he admits today that circular letters are sent out by the office of the General Manager aiming at undermining the bilingual principle of the Railway Service? Will the Minister deny that letters are regularly sent out by the General Manager’s office which have the effect of people at the head of departments being practically compelled to appoint unilingual persons. The Minister may conveniently pretend that he cannot hear what I am saying, but dare he deny it? Let me read to him the principle in regard to bilingualism which was maintained by the late Minster (C. W. Malan). I want to quote from circular letter No. 1995 issued on the 1st September, 1930—

1. (1) No person not qualified in both official languages shall be appointed to a clerical position after the 1st September, 1930. This provision, however, not only applies to new entrants in the Service, but also to those already in the Service.
2. (2) Officials who have to come in touch with the public, or who have to correspond with the public shall be bilingual.
3. (3) Every official is entitled to conduct his official correspondence, his correspondence within his department, his conversations in his work, in the language which he chooses.
4. (4) Every official answer shall be in the language in which the correspondence was started.
5. (5) All officials occupying supervisory positions shall be bilingual.
6. (6) In a position where bilingualism is an essential, the bilingual person, all other things being equal, will be regarded as being the best qualified.

And then the circular gives a definition of bilingualism—

It briefly amounts to this, that the late Mr. C. W. Malan stated that within a period of five years all persons appointed in the Service must be bilingual, and he went further and said that all things being equal in regard to two persons, the one who was bilingual would be regarded as being better qualified. He also defined what he meant by bilingualism, namely that an individual must not only be able to speak and read the second language, but must also be able to write it. He made provision, however, for old officials, and gave them the opportunity of qualifying themselves in five years in both languages. When the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) was Minister of Railways he took pity on people who might not have had the opportunity of thoroughly qualifying themselves in both official languages, and on the 31st August, 1935, he issued circular letter No. 2293, which said this—

The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) therefore gave an opening at the time to the old servants who were unilingual by giving them an opportunity until the 31st December, 1939, to qualify in the other language. But that period had to come to an end on the 31st December, 1939. The present General Manager of Railways shortly after taking up his position gave his attention to this matter and wanted to make that ruling permanent. In that connection I should like to quote from certain correspondence. The General Manager sent out certain letters which were regarded as being of a confidential nature, and the whole object of those letters was permanently to apply to the Railways the temporary ruling given by Mr. Pirow. Thus we find for instance that on the 22nd May, 1940, a letter was sent from the office of the General Manager of Railways, marked confidential and reading as follows:

Notwithstanding the fact that the opportunity given was to lapse on the 31st December, 1939, the General Manager of Railways in this confidential letter writes that the names of unilingual officials must still be forwarded and must be considered on their merits. He draws attention to the provisions of Clause 8 (3) of the Service Act of 1925. But the General Manager was not even satisfied with that and on the 28th July, 1941, he wrote a further letter which was also marked confidential, and from which I wish to quote the following—

In other words, if a unilingual man is passed over, special reasons are to be given for his being passed over.

The man should be retired.

He goes further than that still—

A list of nominations is compiled, but even if there are sufficient bilingual people, the General Manager says that in addition the names of unilingual people who are to be considered have to be forwarded. But it does not remain at that. The people making the nomination apparently did not want to do what the General Manager wanted them to do, and on the 3rd March, 1942, he sent a further confidential letter reading as follows—

The General Manager has now got back to the original notification No. 2293 by Mr. Pirow giving the man a five years opportunity to qualify in both languages. I can only say this, if the General Manager wants to hide behind Clause 8 (3) of the Act, he must know as well as I do that that is intended for those posts where a person cannot come into contact with the public, and he will also have to agree that the application of that Act was only of a temporary nature. It was never intended that it should continue. That is why we find that the late Mr. C. W. Malan stipulated five years, namely until 1929, in order to give those people an opportunity. And that is why the hon. member for Gezina gave them a further chance of another five years, from 1935 to 1939, and the General Manager of Railways now wants to make this permanent. His attitude was calculated to upset the whole policy of bilingualism. And as a matter of fact he did upset that policy, because it did not remain at that. He goes still further. This time it was not a confidential letter, but he now gives these people an example of what they are to do if they have to make nominations. Imagine! These people who for years and years have been doing this work on the Railway Administration are now to be taught by the General Manager how to recommend officials for promotion. He again sent a letter from his office, and in paragraph 3 of that letter he says this—

And then we come to paragraph 4—

And the certificate is as follows—

Have we ever had anything more far-reaching than that? If the nomination schedule is submitted, the Railway Service Commission temporarily has to take an oath that there are no unilingual officials available over these people. Now, I want to ask the Minister this—arising out to what he said on the second reading, namely that so long as he is Minister of Railways the policy in regard to bilingualism will not be undermined on the Railways,—I want to put this to him: Were you aware of these confidential letters which were sent out from the General Manager’s office? I further want to ask this Minister whether this was done on his instructions, and in the third place I want to ask him whether he approves of it, and now I want to say this to him. If the Minister tells us here this afternoon that he approves of it I want to tell him that we can no longer attach any value to his words, because eight days ago he told us that he would see to it that the principle of bilingualism on the Railways would not be undermined, and all the time he knew about these confidential letters which had been sent out practically with the object of forcing people to recommend unilingual officials. If that is so, then I want to tell the Minister that the next letter which he had sent out has no value so far as we are concerned. Last year a deputation waited on the Minister of the Interior to discuss the injustices done to the Afrikaners on the Railways, and after that we had this letter which was written on the 15th December, 1942, and which was also marked confidential—

I say this, that if the Minister was all the time aware of these undermining and confidential letters, and he comes along before the elections with a letter of this kind, then I tell him that we can attach no value to that letter, nor to the statements which he made here the other afternoon. Because if the Minister wants to tell us this afternoon that he was not aware of these letters, then the General Manager of Railways should no longer be allowed to hold office—then it is high time the General Manager of Railways was dismissed. Or the other way round, I say that the Minister is playing a part which is not very laudible. I therefore tell him that if we look at these actions, and if we think of the fine words which he addressed to the Afrikaans-speaking people we hear the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau. Now, let me briefly refer to what happened in connection with Spoorbond, that organisation which the Minister praised so highly, but which afterwards he brought to such a position that they had to choose between the greatest humiliation or a destruction of their organisation. Which of the two was worse so far as they were concerned I don’t know. I assume that both were equally difficult for them. Their humiliation, to have to go on their knees to the Minister, or to see their magnificent organisation being destroyed. But once the Minister had banned that organisation, Spoorbond found that it was no longer allowed to hold meetings in Railway Institutes, and that notwithstanding the fact that members of Spoorbond contribute towards the maintenance of those institutes. Other organisations from outside are allowed in those institutes. The Sons of England are allowed to go there; the Communists are admitted, and even the Jewish Board of Deputies. They are all admitted, but Spoorbond and the Reddingsdaadbond are not admitted. Let me say this to the Minister, that a “Red” Organisation like the Sons of England is more charitably disposed than the Minister. Anyhow the Sons of England have let their halls to Spoorbond organisations for their use. But, although they assist in maintaining the Railway Institute, the Minister is not prepared to allow those halls to be let to them. They are not allowed to enter them. The Minister not only wanted to try and destroy Spoorbond—he even went further in using his emergency measures. There are numerous organisations, the representatives of which always used to be elected. The Minister under his emergency regulations proceeded to say that this was no longer allowed to happen. He used his special powers and he issued a regulation saying that the Executive Committees of the six recognised English organisations would make recommendations in respect of representatives on a number of committees. Representatives on these bodies are no longer to be elected. I don’t want to say anything about the new world of which we hear such a lot. I only want to refer to democracy which the Minister speaks about so often in such glowing terms. Not only did he want to destroy Spoorbond, but he was afraid that Spoorbond might influence people getting on to these bodies, and that was why the Executive Committee of a recognised English organisation had to be used, and they are given the power to nominate. Now I want to come to military service which we are told continually is a voluntary service. If ever I had heard an Irishman talk I heard a Scotsman talk like an Irishman the other day when the Minister replied to the debate, and when he tried to tell us what was really going on in the Railways. He said that we were telling the public that physically fit people were not employed on the Railways, because they were expected to go and fight. Now, let me read what the Minister said—

The Minister does not say that physically fit men are turned down on the Railways. He says that physically unfit men are appointed because they do not want to appoint a physically fit man in the place of another physically fit man. He says it is no use if a physically fit man goes on service to appoint another physically fit person in his stead. In the beginning the Minister was very successful in his fluent flattery of the Afrikaner. But he has been caught by his own eloquence. Let me tell the House what the position is in regard to active service by volunteers. Out of the office of the General Manager himself letters have been sent to people asking them whether they are prepared to join up. I am told that even the Minister’s own office have sent out such letters. People are specifically asked why they do not want to join up. One has exactly the same position as one has in connection with collections for the Governor-General’s Fund. It is stated that the contributions are voluntary but then this self same Col. Leverton in his khaki uniform enters the Department of which he is the Chief, and he has with him a document for the Governor-General’s Fund, and everybody’s name is on that list, and he has to say how much he wants to give. If he refuses to give anything he has to put a nought behind his name. And then we are told that those people go voluntarily. Is not that playing with words? The General Manager says there is no victimisation, and he says that people go voluntarily. We don’t believe in it. The Minister came here the other day and said that never before had the feeling on the Railway been as good as it is today. Well, I can only reply by telling the Minister that he must be a stranger among his own officials. There is a feeling of quiet but accumulated hatred and bitterness against these methods applied by the Minister and the General Manager. That is the true position. In the short while that I have had any dealings with public life I found that we can go to a Railway man and he will open his heart to us, but that is not so now. A Railway man is afraid to be seen talking to a Member of Parliament, and that is the spirit which one finds throughout the Railways.

He is afraid of the presence of spies.

Yes, that is the result of the Gestapo which was referred to by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood). If we travel over our Railways the Afrikaans-speaking officials come along and do not even address us in Afrikaans but in English. If we ask them why their reply is that their instructions are “English first.” I want to say this to the Minister, that if he is suffering from the illusion that all is well with him and the General Manager of Railways, that all is well in their relationship to the staff, then verily he is a stranger in Jerusalem.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was not able to be present in the House when the hon. the Minister replied to what I had to say on the second reading of this Part Appropriation Bill. I hope the Minister will realise that it was unavoidable absence on my part. I am particularly sorry that I was not able to be here because from what I have read I think the Minister has misunderstood some of the points that I made. I did my best to make it clear that in what I was saying about the wages of the non-European workers I was not so much finding fault with what the Minister himself has done since he became Minister of Railways and Harbours. We are grateful to him for what he has done. I am the last person to forget what he has done. We owe to him the pension scheme for nonEuropean workers. None of us is likely to forget the establishment of that scheme, which was a great concession to the nonEuropean worker. What the Minister has done has been more than the last two or three Ministers have done, and we are duly grateful for that. But, sir, when all that is said and done, we still have a very considerable anxiety about the position of the non-European worker on the Railways. I tried and I want to try again to make the hon. Minister see the situation as I see it. I am quite aware of the fact that if the Minister were to do what I want him to do, and what I think is absolutely justified at the present time, he would need the support of the Cabinet behind him. But I did try to put to the Minister that we are bound to judge the intentions of the Government by what is done by the Department of Railways, for the simple reason that the Department of Railways is the largest employer of non-European labour on the Government side, and the second largest employer of that type of labour in the country, and I think we are entitled to judge the Government policy by what the Railway Department has done and is still doing, despite what the Minister has done to meet the situation, which he inherited, which is to carry on with a labour force which is lamentably badly paid. The Minister himself last year used the word “deplorable” when speaking of the situation. That force is lamentably badly paid. Furthermore, the Railway Department so far from acting as model employer is in fact acting as a bad example to private employers; it is actually acting as a drag on the private employment market. We find it impossible to get basic wages up to anything near a living standard, because the Government itself will not approximate the wages paid to its non-European workers to that standard. I quoted only the most spectacular instance of Johannesburg where the wages laid down by the Wage Board, although far from a living standard, have been objected to on the ground that the Railway Department pays a much lower rate. We were told by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) that when outside wages rose, Railway wages would also rise. But the hon. member never gave us practical evidence that the promise was a genuine one. For rates were rising at that time, yet the Railways did not come into line. That is why the present Minister of Railways has so much leeway to make up. The leeway is still to be made up, and in view of the findings of recent Commissions, and in view of the repeated statements made by the Government as to its own good intentions, I feel that we must ask the Minister of Railways to tell us, or at least that we are entitled to ask the Minister to tell us, what the policy of the Government is in regard to a living standard for non-European workers in its employ; and I was hoping that the Minister, who, I know, appreciates all the implications of the present unsatisfactory situation, would have taken this matter to the Cabinet and obtained a Cabinet decision on the matter. We ourselves have taken this matter up with the Prime Minister—I think that is common knowledge. We have interviewed the Prime Minister on the implications of the Government’s statement that it intends to build a society in which everyone will be able to earn a decent living by his work. When we made representations on that subject we naturally had to quote as an instance of the practice of the Government the conditions on the Railways, and I think it is only just and fair that we should put the matter to the Minister of Railways himself, as we are bound to regard him in this particular matter as the mouthpiece of the Government. So again, may I ask the Minister if he can and will give us an idea of what the Government does intend to do about a living standard of wages, to what extent the concessions which he is making this year of a 6d. increase all round is a step forward in the direction we have gone. I know in general it is a step forward, but the time factor is of primary importance. We want to know when the last step forward in a living standard is going to be achieved. That is really not too much to ask, and I do trust the Minister will be able to give us an answer. Now, on this matter and on other matters which I raised when I spoke on the second reading of this Bill, I think the Minister gave the House the impression—unintentionally or otherwise—that members on this bench were well in his confidence in the matter of what the Department did intend doing about non-European conditions, and there was a general impression, also possibly not justified, that I had taken an unfair advantage of the Minister in asking questions of the kind I heard on the floor of the House. There must be a misunderstanding somewhere. I am not conscious of any special knowledge of what the Minister plans in his Department. I have had no personal contact with the Minister for about a year. I have made no general representation on any of these aspects of the nonEuropean position, because the Minister knows exactly what I feel about it. He had all these representations before him last year and the year before, and the year before that, so that so far as I am concerned I have simply been waiting for evidence of the results of our representations, and our common understanding—that I admit—that something is needed to be done, and needed to be done urgently. I think the Minister will admit that, even while I have confidence in his intentions and his policy, on the occasions I have spoken to him on the matter, I have expressed my anxiety about the pace of improvement, that I said expressed my concern at the slowness of the pace. There is only one direction in which I have had any special talks with the Minister, and that I do willingly admit. Last year the Minister did consult me on the question of providing constitutional machinery for the representation of grievances of non-European workers. I was very gratified that the Minister invited my opinion on this matter, and I was only too willing to give it to him, which I did last May. I was then very hopeful that the Minister was going to create this machinery, and I believe it is still his intention to do so, but here again the time factor comes in Early last year I knew the Minister was planning to create machinery whereby all the employees of the Railway Department would be provided with a channel of communication with the senior officials of the Department so that they might place their grievances before them. Now, the reason why I raised this matter is that, since last year, important things have happened, the most important being the publication of War Measure No. 145, which from our point of view has changed the situation. That Measure, No. 145, as the Minister knows lays down that strikes of Natives, that is, of employees who are excluded from the constitutional machinery established by the Industrial Conciliation Act, that strikes by those employees are in all circumstances illegal, and that any contravention of that principle will call down upon those who do venture to contravene it very heavy penalties indeed. So I took the liberty of asking the Minister whether that Proclamation applied to the Railways, and, if so, whether he did intend to provide that this constitutional machinery which to the best of my knowledge has not yet come into existence. I had also read recently that he had now appointed someone to investigate this whole matter, so that as far as I can see, the provision of such machinery is possibly still in doubt that machinery may or may not materialise. It is for that reason that I was anxious to know what the Minister has to say to us on this matter. I trust the Minister will understand this explanation, that he will understand that in anything I said in the House I was anxious to avoid the betrayal of any confidence he had confided to me. I still trust that the Minister will give us an answer to some of these questions which I have raised. I wish again also to repeat the point which I raised on the earlier debate, namely, the wide discontent of the Native population at its treatment on the Railways. I took the occasion then to state that I knew of specific grievances brought to the attention of the Railways Department which are firmly and adequately dealt with but I raised the general issue of the treatment of Natives by Railway officials and urged that if the Native people were given clerks of their own racial character to serve them, a good deal of the present dissatisfaction would disappear. I hope that suggestion will not be allowed to go by the board, but that the Minister and his Department will give it their serious consideration.

There is a matter which I raised during the debate on the second reading—the question of a certain F. C. Ackermann who was dismissed from the Service without any reasons being given. In his reply the Minister dismissed the matter with these words: “This man was dismissed because he was an unsatisfactory worker.” The hon. the Minister did not see fit to inform the House of the reasons why this man was put off. Even less did he see fit to inform the House why in this particular instance, and in other instances as well, there was such a departure from the procedure laid down in regard to such cases. A procedure has been laid down which is contained in the Railway Service Act—it is a procedure in regard to officials who are accused of certain offences; it is laid down what procedure must be followed before such an official is dismissed. Latterly, however, it appeared that without any reasons being given, and without any trial, officials are dismissed from the Service on twenty-four hours notice. If the Minister should perhaps not know what the Railway Service Act says I should like to quote the particular clauses to him. I trust he will be able to understand them. I shall read in English so that he will understand them better. The Railway Service Act of 1925 contains the provision that when a servant is charged he has to be dismissed on the ground of incompetency. Clause 10 Ci) reads as follows:—

Here we have a provision stating that if any servant is accused of inefficiency he must be notified of the reasons for the charge and an enquiry has to be made then as to whether such a charge is well founded or not. That is what the Railway Service Act lays down in respect of officials charged with inefficiency. Then there is another provision which I also propose to read in English. This provision lays down the procedure to be followed in cases where an official is charged with other offences. Clause 17 (iv) of the Railway Service Act reads as follows:—

It is laid down here that if a serious charge is made against an official an enquiry is to be held, and even if such an official admits having committed such an offence an enquiry must still be held if he so desires. These provisions are there for the protection of the official; Parliament considered the matter to be of such importance that it laid this down in the Act. It now appears that in regard to these cases where officials have been dismissed without any reasons having been given, the Administration has departed entirely from the usual procedure. Ackermann was given 24 hours notice to leave the Service. He was not given any reason, and to this day he does not know what the complaints against him were. The Minister simply says that he is an unsatisfactory servant, but the Minister has not got the right to dismiss a servant in that manner. Since when is the Minister entitled to appropriate unto himself the right to ignore these provisions of the Service Act? Ackermann thereupon appealed. The appeal first of all went to the General Manager and after that to the Railway Board. On the 21st April Ackermann was notified that his appeal had been dismissed. But even to this day he does not know yet what he was charged with. I can only come to the conclusion that there has been the grossest irregularity in respect of the dismissal of this person. I have some other instances which I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice. In Johannesburg a certain man, C. D. Delport, was suddenly notified that he was dismissed. Here, too, he was dismissed without any reasons being given and without any trial, and to this day he does not know what he was charged with. He had informed the Press of a certain accident which had taken place. He informed them that a shunter had met with an accident. Three months afterwards, without any reason being given and without any trial, he was dismissed from the service. During the debate on the second reading I said that espionage in the Railway Service was worse than Hitler’s worst Gestapo service. Although the Minister pretends that these people are guilty of subversive activities it has been found that they have been dismissed because of complaints made against them by other officials. This constitutes the grossest form of victimisation. Other members went into this question very thoroughly this afternoon. In several instances they proved that this victimisation does occur, and this victimisation has been going on since the beginning of the war. Dozens of officials are being-dismissed without any reason being given, and without any trial, or any investigation. Last year I put a question to the Minister and this was my question—

To this question the Minister replied—

My next question was as follows—

He replied—

My third question was—

To this the Minister replied: “Yes”. At the time when I put these questions there was a very real feeling of uneasiness among the staff. During the previous month thirtyseven cases of assaults by Natives on ticket examiners had occurred. The ticket examiners on Native trains were in constant danger of their lives. Afterwards they were obliged to hold meetings of protest, and they went to the extent of making representations to the Administration, but the Administration failed to do anything. At long last they felt compelled to protect themselves and they held meetings of protest. The result was that the ticket examiners who had taken the lead were immediately transferred to the outlying corners of the Union, and today they are still in those outlying corners. One of them has since been dismissed. The Minister admitted that assaults had taken place but he stated that he did not know of any feelings of uneasiness among the staff, and he also said that adequate protection was afforded on the trains. Since I put this question there have been many assaults, and I am now only referring to assaults which have been reported in the public Press. Let me mention a few of those cases—there are other cases which the newspapers never heard anything about. This question was put on the 16th January, 1942, and only two weeks before there had been an assault on three ticket examiners between Maraisburg and Unified. Those ticket examiners were assaulted by Natives and one of them had his hand very badly bitten. On the 3rd January, 1942, a ticket examiner between Princess and Roodepoort was stabbed in the head. He was taken to hospital. A week before that he was also assaulted. On the 3rd January, 1942, between Boksburg and Boksburg North a ticket examiner was assaulted by a Native and his clothes were torn off his body. During January, 1942, the police at Pimville were stoned by Natives. On the 15th March, 1942, a ticket examiner was stabbed. On the 16th August, 1942, a ticket examiner was stabbed repeatedly between Langlaagte and Grassmore. On the 1st August, 1942, ticket examiners between Robinson and West Rand were assaulted. On the 31st January this year, that is, the end of last month, a ticket examiner between Johannesburg and Pimville received serious stab wounds in the head. All these cases took place last year, and I can say that there has been practically no protection afforded to these ticket examiners. The work they do is dangerous work, because during the week-ends Natives are often under the influence of liquor, and ticket examiners get no protection. Now, we get this insult. Instead of the Administration affording those ticket examiners the necessary protection, the General Manager two weeks ago sent out the following circular letter—

This is a circular letter sent to the staff. The ticket examiners and the staff are assaulted by Natives, and here the General Manager comes along and by implication he reprimands the staff. I regard this as a gross insult to the staff, especially as it has been proved that there have been numerous assaults on the staff. I trust the hon. the Minister will go into this matter and will give instructions to his General Manager to see that effective protection is afforded the staff on the trains. I want to conclude where I started, namely with the victimisation of Railway officials, and I again wish to emphasise that I feel that in the whole of the Railway’s history there has never been a period of more serious victimisation that we have had in the past three years. I admit that the Minister has done his best time and again to put a stop to it, but the trouble is that the Minister generally does not know what is going on on the Railways. He does not know what is going on in the different departments, and the only time it can be brought to his notice is on the floor of this House. I hope the Minister will go into these matters and will try to preserve the good reputation he achieved at the beginning of his career, and I hope he will see to it that a stop is put to this victimisation of Railway officials.

Before I go into the grievances of Railway officials, there is just one little matter I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister. It is a matter that does not have direct relation to the grievances of the officials. It is in connection with the Railway motor buses. Unfortunately I have not the necessary data here—how many miles per annum these buses travel on public roads, what the income is, what the expense is, and what the transport, etc., is. I want to point out that the Minister is guilty of a gross abuse where his motor buses make use of public roads, while he does not give a measure of compensation to the local body in respect of the construction and maintenance of those roads. It is the custom today to put motor buses on the public roads, and, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister shows a big surplus on his books every year, he does not contribute a penny towards the expenses connected with the construction and maintenance of those roads. After a hefty agitation had been set afoot by the Executive Committee of the Divisional Councils in the Cape, the Minister agreed to make available a sum of £25,000. Under the Divisional Council system of the Cape, the local body has to contribute, at any rate, as far as Boards are concerned, 50 per cent. to the costs of construction and maintenance of public roads. It is on the B road particularly where the motor buses are used to transport the products of the farmers to the railway centres. It is a surprisingly big sum, if you take into consideration that the landowners here are taxed to keep those roads in order, and the Minister comes with his motor buses and he runs those roads to pieces. I do not know if the Minister is aware of the fact that such a motor bus causes astonishingly great damage to a wet road. If the road is wet, and a motor bus runs over it once, that road is totally ruined. [Laughter.] My hon. friend on the other side laughs at it, but he has no knowledge of the matter. If he really knows what the position is, he would perhaps take up the matter more seriously.

I agree with you.

Earnest representations were directed to the Minister by the Executive Committee of the Divisional Councils in the Cape, and ultimately the Minister agreed to contribute the majestic sum of £25,000 to the four provinces. One simply cannot imagine that a great, mighty, prosperous institution such as the Railways would debase itself to give a sum of £25,000 to the four provinces. I would say it is a drop in the bucket, if one takes into consideration the grave damage caused by those buses to the roads. But what also transcends the understanding of everyone is that the Minister should grant that sum on specific conditions laid down by him. One of those conditions is that he can grant it to any province he likes. He might for instance allot the whole amount to Natal this year, or he might allot it to the Transvaal. Or he might decide that that £25,000 should be spent only on the public roads in Cape Town. Imagine £25,000 between the four provinces, then each one gets about £6,000, and if my hon. friend on the other side has any idea of the costs of roads, he would know that that sum does not get one very far. Here the hon. Minister comes with the sum of £25,000 between the four provinces. Take for instance one of the smallest districts, such as Hanover. Hanover spends £3,500 per year on its A roads, and on its B roads it spends £1,000, a total of £4,500 spent by a small district in one year. I feel convinced that if the Minister sees the damage caused by his buses he will be more liberal and allot a greater amount to the provinces, particularly where the local taxpayer in the Cape is taxed to maintain those roads used by the Railway motor buses. I cannot understand how the Minister can do such a thing while the Railways are yielding great surpluses. In the second place he lays down those conditions, viz., that the building of the roads must have his approval. He must determine how those roads must be built. In other words, the Minister can come along and make you spend an amount on a small section of road, and then the condition is put that you must contribute £ for £. This proposal of the Minister is absolutely the most unfair proposal I have ever seen. These demands of the Minister are definitely the most unfair demands I have ever seen in my life. If the buses did not yield a profit one could perhaps still understand it, but the Minister knows that the buses are yielding profits. Unfortunately I have not the figures here, but they do yield profits. And the buses are not there merely to yield profits, but they are also the veins that feed the Railways and that make the mighty surpluses of the Railways possible. It is due to the buses, which provide additional transport to the Railways, that we have the great surpluses. I want to ask the Minister seriously and urgently if it is not possible to increase the amount of £25,000 by at least £100,000. An amount of £125,000 is but a drop in the bucket to the Railways. Otherwise one would almost like to ask the Minister to withdraw that £25,000. Then we can at least say that the Minister has no say in connection with that matter. But now comes the Minister and hon. members on the other side and they shield behind the insignificant £25,000. Thereby they want to create the impression that the Railways contribute. Anyone who has knowledge of the building of roads, will look upon the £25,000 with contempt. Take a place like Colesberg, where the Minister came and allotted the mighty sum of £200 for the building of a certain road. I certainly think it was a contemptible amount and the Divisional Council rejected it with contempt for the simple reason that the conditions put by the Minister were impossible to carry out. I asked the Minister to be reasonable in the matter, particularly in respect of the Cape, where private persons are heavily taxed. The Minister has great surpluses and he ought to contribute his share fairly. I revert to the Railways as a whole. In September a big delegation waited on the then Acting Minister of Railways and they laid certain grievances before him. I have forgotten the figures, but I gave them to the Minister at the time, and one of the grievances was that about 30 persons in the Head Office of the Railway Administration had refused to join up when the appeal in connection with Tobruk was made, and the following day or two 18 of them were suddenly transferred to small stations all over the country. I do not know so much about railways, but I think the Minister will admit that every official who works in the Head Office looks upon it as a degradation or an insult to be transferred to a small station elsewhere. That is the general conception. Now the excuse is made that the 18 persons were transferred to small stations in order to be superseded by ladies. The Minister said in reply to a question—

Refuge is now sought behind the word “official”. Why the word? The question is whether the people are approached to join up. “Official”. You can commit many sins without it being “official”. I want to know if the people were asked to join up, and if so, I want to know from the hon. Minister how many people were transferred, and when, from the Head Office to small stations elsewhere in the country. His reply further was—

But then this follows—

Now I want to ask the Minister whether it was customary in the past to send people from the Head Office in groups of 18 in order to gain wider experience at the small centres. I hope the Minister will not again give a half-baked reply. Let him say straight out what happened and not hide behind words such as “official” and “wider experience”. Then I come to a second grievance harboured by the Railway staff, and let me say that I view the matter so seriously that I feel that we ought to insist that a Commission be appointed immediately to conduct an investigation into the grievances of Railway officials, then we shall be able to go into the grievances that exist. Then we shall find out that indignation prevails in connection with existing conditions. The Minister of Railways will say to me that there are the usual channels of which the people may avail themselves for airing their grievances, but we know what the usual channels are. Possibly the Minister will even say that it is a great privilege that the lowest official can ventilate his grievances through those channels. But if you actually know what happens, then you will agree that it is not a privilege. The first complaint is that replies to correspondence conducted are so delayed that the matter has become unbearable. Often a year or more passes before a complaint is properly dealt with. And now it is being said that there is not enough staff. Possibly that is the reason for the delay, but the position cannot be allowed to continue. Let me say further that officials who send through their complaints from below, and who get their reply, then find their case so watered down that it is no longer the grievance which they submitted. If it comes to the higher officials, it is no longer the grievance that the man submitted, but it is watered down. I do not know if the delay happens deliberately or whether it is actually due to a shortage of staff, but it takes a year or longer and the person who has the grievance becomes despondent. Let us consider for a moment the promotion of officials. Rightly or wrongly—it makes no difference—the fixed conviction exists in the Railway Service today that only certain favourites are promoted. And let me say here that in so far as the Railways are concerned, the staff feel that the only people who get promotion are the tale-bearers; and, secondly, the crawlers, who are not very particular about principles; and, thirdly, the see-the-war-through supporters. We have heard here this afternoon what the position is in connection with appointments, and I do not want to stop at that subject longer, but I come to another injustice that is felt by Railway officials. We know that for a man who has not passed Standard 6 certain channels of promotion are closed. The person who has not passed Standard 6 is temporarily appointed in an acting capacity. Now, I want to ask the Minister if it is not a fact that persons act for three years or longer without obtaining a fixed appointment. They simply act because they have not passed Standard 6. They have to do the work of someone in a higher grade, but do not get the appointment. If that is not exploitation, then I shall like to know what exploitation is. It is an extreme scandal to see how use is made in the higher grades of someone’s services who gets no remuneration for it. In the third place, I want to say something about the wage scale. I want to admit that of late a slight improvement has come about, but the position is not what it should be by far, and I hope that the Minister will meet particularly the low-paid officials in this respect and ensure that they get a reasonable wage. Additional privileges were recently extended to the non-European Railway workers, but nothing has been done to satisfy the European in this respect. Another great grievance is overtime. Railway officials are often used for overtime work, up to four hours a day; but they do not get remuneration for the four hours if their shift service the following day does not stretch to the usual full number of hours. They are not responsible for the fact that they cannot work the full number of hours. If a Railway official has to work four hours overtime today, and tomorrow he works a shift of only five hours, through no fault of his own, then the four hours are added to the five hours. That is unfair. I would like the Minister to acknowledge this. The position is being abused. Then we have the road motor bus drivers who are in a still more unfavourable position. They may work hours and hours overtime without receiving remuneration. This matter has been brought to the attention of the authorities for some years, but no change has been brought about. The Minister boasts of great surpluses every year, and the time has come for him to do justice to these people. The following point is the working hours of the staff in various classes. I do not want to deal with the position of station foremen too long, because it has been dealt with before, but terrible dissatisfaction exists today as regards station foremen. There is a great difference in the position at various places. In the big railway centres you get men who confine their attention to specific things, but then you get places that are not so big and where there is only one person on duty. In the small places the station foreman is responsible for everything, and it does not matter who causes the accident, the station foreman is held responsible. That is terribly unfair, to say the least of it. I would like the Minister to make a statement as to whether station foremen regularly get the holidays to which they are entitled, and when they ask for it. If they do not get it, why not? In the second place, I would like to ask whether station foremen are often asked to work every day in the week, including Saturdays and Sundays, without getting off one single day, and sometimes having to work twelve hours per day. They have to perform all sorts of duties, but if something goes wrong in one place or another at the station, they are responsible. But let me come to officials of still lower rank. Take the stewards on the trains. What is the treatment of passengers today? It is not the fault of the stewards, but the treatment is so poor because the staff is too few. It repeatedly happens that a steward does not even get the opportunity of eating. If the train is full, which is usually the case nowadays, and there are up to three sittings in the evening, then they themselves hardly get a chance to eat. And if there are passengers who cannot go to sit at the tables because there is not room, and because the last sitting is too late to remain up for, and they want to order something in the compartment, then they cannot get it. They have to go to bed without food. The Minister may perhaps say that he is trying to persuade the public not to travel, and that he wants to get those men in the service to go and fight. Is that fair? Then you get the position where you are told that the train is cram-ful and that no accommodation is to be found, yet when you travel you often find that there are compartments running empty. The Minister cannot deny this. I have investigated the matter not once but numbers of times. Why is the public being treated in this way? It is a scandal. If he wants to prohibit the public from travelling, let him announce it in the Press. I shall not be surprised if the Minister comes next week to announce higher fares because he does not want the people to travel. But let him make an open-hearted statement and say that the Railways do not want the people to travel. It can at least be expected that where people travel for serious reasons that they shall be decently treated. I can tell the hon. Minister that here in Cape Town men and women teachers were delayed who had to be in their places on Monday morning to start teaching. They were told that they could not get accommodation until fourteen days or two weeks later. Only then would there be accommodation. I went to get accommodation for them. But why is this the situation? Simply because the Minister refuses to have people appointed to regulate matters properly. People must be forced to go and fight, and the public must be frightened away from travelling. That also applies to school children. We saw in the Press how many children came late because they could not get accommodation on the trains. You have people who are sick or who have to travel for urgent reasons. I personally had to come to Cape Town. For urgent reasons I had to be in Cape Town on Saturday and I telegraphed to Bloemfontein to book my accommodation. They replied that there was no accommodation, no accommodation whatsoever. I told them that they need not book accommodation for me, that I had to travel and that I was going to. I travelled alone in the compartment from Hanover to Cape Town. Why are the facts not laid before the public? The staff is being overworked and understaffed, and the public are being badly treated. Fortunately, we do not always know to what dangers we are exposed, but according to what I saw in the Press no fewer than six train accidents occurred in Natal in the past 14 days where trains collided head-on. This morning there is another report of an accident. Why do these happen? Because the persons who have to serve the trains are over-worked. Conductors often tell me that they are so tired that they cannot stand on their legs any longer. If the public know what dangers they risk they will not travel at all. I hope the Minister will improve those conditions, and that he will see to it that the Afrikaner also comes to his rights on the Railways.

I want to identify myself with the representations of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) in connection with the contribution given by the Railways to the Divisional Councils in respect of roads that are being damaged by Railway buses. It is an old grievance, and we have perpetually made representations to the Department ever since the Railway buses ran. Promises have been made, but it remained at that. The matter has been raised here and it has been raised outside, and it has been pleaded that the Railway Administration should contribute in connection with the roads. The hon. member for Victoria West has painted the position none too glaringly. The Minister may not know it, but where a motor bus runs over a road that is slightly wet, there two deep ruts remain in the road and if one travels over the road after it has dried off suddenly and has become hard, then you experience the greatest inconvenience. I personally have had the use of a motor bus to transport manure from Laingsburg to Ladismith, and I know that not only the culverts were trodden flat but that also the pipes laid through the road were broken and damaged, and then the taxpayer, the Divisional Councils, have to pay again. The Minister has great surpluses and can pay his share. I remember how the Divisional Council of Ceres applied a few years ago for a bridge over the railway line. The road was there first and the railway was built a long time after the road, but when they wanted to deviate the road to bring about an improvement, they applied to the Minister for a contribution. The Minister offered the paltry sum of a few thousand pounds, with the result that the people were obliged to leave the matter as it was and the position remains unsatisfactory. The Divisional Council of Ceres further wanted to construct a road through the pass near Ceres. The buses damaged the road terribly, but the Minister does not come to the assistance of these people in the least. I do not like complaining, but I think the Minister ought to meet the Divisional Councils. Then the high tariffs that we have to pay. Recently I ordered 8,000 bundles of thatching-reed from Albertinia and if I tell you what I had to pay on it you will be alarmed—£13 10s. It is an extreme position that we should have to pay such prices. In another case I obtained a truck of small beans from Kluitjieskraal, and I had to pay £6. In yet another case I obtained a truck of poles to support vines from Elgin, and the railway tariff was £9. The price we have to pay is terrible and I hope the Minister will give his attention to these things. Then there is another question I want to put, and that is in how far people have the right to take dogs with them in first-class compartments in which other passengers are also travelling. Who must see to it that these things do not happen? I experienced the unpleasantness the other day of travelling with two officers who had a great hound with them in the compartment. Surely that cannot be allowed. I know that when I have to send a dog by train I must send it in the dog-box. What right have these people to take a dog in a first-class compartment in which there are fellow-passengers? I mention this not to cause ill-feeling, but people must see to it that this does not happen; indeed the officers are sometimes very impertinent. The other day I travelled by train from Laingsburg and an officer lay down on my place, and no matter what the conductor tried to do about it, it was in vain. Ultimately he said: “This is the place of Mr. Van Zyl, the member of Parliament for Ceres, and it has long since been booked.” The officer replied: “What have I to do with politicians—I am a soldier who has 35 men to look after.” That is the way in which they act, and the Minister must see to it that his officials are enabled to do their work and that they are properly protected.

I would like to revert to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood), in connection with the injustices against the Afrikaans-speaking section and the favouritism in connection with the English-speaking section that has taken place, particularly in the Railways, during the past few years. It is not necessary to remind the Minister of the difficult struggle that the Afrikaans-speaking section has had to wage in years past in order to obtain a place in the public service. The Minister is aware of the fact that we had to wage a hard language struggle, a hard struggle for the rights of our language in South Africa. That was the great struggle in the past between the South African Party and the Nationalist Party. In this respect a great improvement came about, but there are two divisions of the State service particularly in which the position is still extremely unsound, viz., the Postal Service and the Railway Service. In the Railway Service one finds that the higher posts are still in a large measure withheld from the Afrikaans-speaking section, and the Afrikaans-speaking section do not get their rightful due under those circumstances. When the present Minister was appointed Minister of Railways and Harbours, we got the impression at the start that he is imbued with a spirit of fairness, that he would not make an unjust differentiation between the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking sections. That is the impression we got, that under the Minister’s tenure of office no injustice will take place against the Afrikaans-speaking section. But the Minister, evidently as a result of the influence of his advisors, has undergone a total metamorphosis of late. If one notes the Minister’s action two years ago, and sees what happens now, then one sometimes thinks that he has become a total stranger. I have asked myself: To what must this metamorphosis be attributed? Is it perhaps just the war psychosis that has caused the Minister to become so imperialistic that he looks through red spectacles wherever he has to look through the spectacles of fairness? Has he been overwhelmed by the high officials of the Railways, by those people who look upon the Railways as a last bulwark, and who, figuratively speaking, want to defend that fort with their last drop of blood, whether it be English blood or Scottish blood? Is it that the Minister, just as I, belong to a conquered race? I understand he is a Scot—and is it that he has surrendered himself so completely that, proverbially speaking, he has become more Catholic than the Pope himself? To what we must ascribe it, I do not know, but, as the member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood), has pointed out here terrible injustice is taking place today in respect of Afrikaners in the Railway Service as regards promotion, and not only that, but a terrible unfairness is also taking place against the Afrikaansspeaking section as a direct sequence of the Government’s war policy. Compulsion is being exercised upon the Afrikaner in the Railway Service in all sorts of ways. Will the Minister deny that in the office of the General Manager, as well as in the Accounts Department, officials were asked in writing whether they would join the army? I want to ask him if he approves of this, and if he realises in what an extremely difficult position Railway officials are being placed, particularly when the General Manager is more military than the official, when he is a Brigadier in the army, and when people under him in the Railway Service are asked on his written instructions whether they are prepared to join the army? If that man says no, would the Minister then want to tell me that that man has any reason to believe that he will ever again be fairly treated by those persons appointed above him? I could touch on many of those things, but I only want to mention one other point. Does the Minister approve that higher officials in the offices should go about and virtually force the staff to contribute to the Governor-General’s Fund? Does he approve of the fact that a certain System Manager, who was formerly in Johannesburg, should have taken his wife with him so that she can exercise her influence on Railway officials who hold views other than the views of the System Manager? Does he think that officials in the Railway service can have the high regard for him and for the General Manager of Railways that they should have if that sort of compulsion is exercised on them? And then I come to the favouritism of the English-speaking section and the injustices against the Afrikaans-speaking section. We know this happens. There is a very easy way of doing this—the manipulation of the grading of posts. Posts are graded up or degraded, whether circumstances justify this or not, in order to appoint Dick, Tom and Harry. When this sort of intrigue occurs in a State department, and when the Railway department proceeds with the injustice to Afrikaners and favouritism towards the English-speaking section by means of the manipulation of the grading of posts, it makes one think of Tammany Hall. I say we have every reason to think that the political intrigue of Tammany Hall never went further than the intrigue we have today in our Railway department. It is a sort of nepotism that can be compared with the worst degree of the original. I want to mention a few cases of this. There is the post of Secretary to the Railway Service Commission. A certain Hopkins had to be appointed, but Hopkins was not qualified for the post. It was a post graded on a maximum salary of £1,200. To bring it within the reach of Hopkins it had to be graded on a maximum of £735. Just think of it, a post graded on the maximum of £1,200 is degraded to a maximum of £735 a year in order to give the appointment to Hopkins. And after Hopkins was appointed the same post is suddenly graded up to £840. I think you will understand—and we can mention numbers of such cases—that that sort of method makes one think of Tammany Hall. If we take the Railway Head Office itself, then we find there a position of manipulation of posts, in order to get posts for pals, that certainly reflects shame on the whole Railway Administration. I want to mention one case which has already been mentioned here, but I want to mention it from another standpoint. Mr. Carter was superintendent (operating) in Johannesburg. According to my information it was his turn to be promoted System Manager. If Mr. Carter was promoted to System Manager, then his post would probably have been filled by a certain Mr. McDonald, who, despite his name, is Afrikaans-speaking. What must be done to keep Mr. McDonald out of it? That was very easy according to the methods that are applied in the Railway Service. Instead of appointing Mr. Carter System Manager, the post of superintendent (operating) in Johannesburg was regraded from £1,200 to £1,400. So then Mr. Carter could remain there. Not only was Mr. McDonald kept out, but a whole series of Afrikaners who would have been promoted if Mr. McDonald got the appointment were held back. The excuse evidently was that the post of superintendent (operating) in Johannesburg is a very important one, the most important of its kind in South Africa, and therefore the post had to be graded up from £1,200 to £1,400. But what happened then? As the result of circumstances, Mr. Carter had to act as System Manager, and in his place, for this important post in Johannesburg, Mr. Thiel was appointed. He arrived in Johannesburg from Windhoek a short while before. He had no knowledge of Johannesburg’s conditions, and he occupied a post with a maximum salary of £840, with no administrative experience of the Johannesburg system. In the case of Mr. Carter the post was graded up because it is so important, but Mr. Thiel could act in the post for a long time even though he stood on a grade of £840. He was good enough to act in that post for a long time.