I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

The hon. the Minister, of course, is not a lawyer, but he proposes here to depart from the ordinary procedure which is that one has to take transfer if one buys land. As a lawyer I am very proud of the system of registration of land in the Union. You know, Mr. Chairman, and I think other hon. members know, that our system of registration of land is the most perfect in the world. One can go to the Deeds Office and trace the whole history of every bit of land from A to Z. The Minister now proposes to depart from that system; in other words, he is going to turn our perfect system into a faulty one, and that is the thin end of the wedge. I assume he does not want to pay the few pounds it costs to take transfer. Surely there are Government attorneys to do that work, and the expense cannot be very heavy. The Minister now proposes that the Railways will not be required to take transfer. They return the land to the owner, and then they go to the Deeds Office and inform the Deeds Office that the land has been returned to the owner. I think we would be failing in our duty if we failed to lodge our protest against this departure from the existing system. We have no reason to be as proud of the Railways as we are of our present system. We have one thing that is perfect in our Administrative system, and the Minister now proposes to depart from this principle of the registration of land. One can find out from the Deeds Office today what an individual’s financial position is. In other words, the right we have to find out what a man’s financial position is by going to the Deeds Office and ascertaining what bonds a man has on his farm is now to be taken away from us. I don’t want to move an amendment. The other side of the House wants this Bill to be passed now, but I feel it is my duty to lodge a protest. I do so because there is a principle at stake, a very important principle, which the Minister now wants to do away with. Let him go on like that; the result of this Bill will be that eventually we shall have just as big a mess in our system of registration of land as we have on the Railways today.

The hon. member is dealing with a matter which was also dealt with in the second reading debate. There I explained that when the railways expropriate land …

I was told what you said, but that does not alter the position.

That makes me all the more surprised that the hon. member found it necessary to intervene at this stage. But the position is this, that when we expropriate land, we take full and complete title under expropriatory powers. There is no need to register that land, but in fact, so that there may be no difficulty, so that there may be no doubt as to where our land should go, we do take out title in all cases comprising stations and siding emplacements and land including right of way situated in townships and urban areas, so that anybody who is likely to be alongside us knows exactly where we stand. But the suggestion that we should take out title for the hundreds of miles which run through farms and so on, is a suggestion that is of no practical value, that is of no use to anybody at all, but would involve the Railways, because of diagrams which have to be made, in expenditure which I think this House would not like to place upon the Railways or on the owners of the land. I see no advantage in taking out title in this case, and if we did take out title it would cost us something to re-register that title. I think on the whole the landowner is much more keen on leaving the situation as it is, and I am glad that the hon. member in registering his protest has not taken the matter further.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I move the amendment standing in my name as printed on page 210 of the Votes and Proceedings—

1. (4) Should any dispute arise as to the amount of such compensation, the matter shall be settled, at the option of the owner or occupier of such land, either—
   1. (a) by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the law in force in the province in which the land is situated, relating to the expropriation of land by the Government for public purposes; or
   2. (b) by action instituted by the owner or occupier, if the amount claimed be less than seven hundred and fifty pounds, in the magistrate’s court for the district in which the land is situated, or if the amount claimed be seven hundred and fifty pounds or more, in the Division of the Supreme Court within whose area of jurisdiction the land is situated.

As the Minister has met the views expressed by hon. members on both sides of the House in accepting this amendment, I need take no time in debating it. This clause, as amended, in no way disturbs the present provisions of the law relating to the expropriation of land by the Government for public purposes, but adds provision to simplify proceedings at the option of a claimant who as the owner or occupier of land, has a claim for compensation against the Department of Railways and Harbours.

I purposely did not speak on the second reading debate of this Bill because I had a question on the Order Paper in connection with this Bill, which was very important. Clause 2 appears to me to be one of the most peculiar Clauses that I have seen for a long time in this House, and I have done my utmost to try and understand what is the reason for that Clause. During the second reading debate on this Bill the hon. the Minister every now and then seemed to be holding out a bit of sugar to the farming community. It appeared to me that the Minister was making an attempt to give the House the impression that this Bill only dealt with land which might in days to come be bought from farmers, and that is why I put a question on the Order Paper to find out whether that was the position. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister in his reply to my question refused to give the answer. This was my question, and I leave it to hon. members to judge whether the Minister does not owe me a reply to that question—

1. (a) Whether he intends purchasing the Wanderers grounds near Johannesburg station, and if so, for what purpose?
2. (b) The estimated costs of such purchase?

This Clause deals with the purchase of land. My second question was as follows—

My third question was as follows—

The hon. the Minister replied as follows—

I say that in view of the Bill now before the House the Minister was in duty bound to reply to that question, and he should not have given this kind of reply, and before I can allow this Clause to pass, the Minister will have to give this Committee the assurance that the Wanderers grounds will not under the provisions laid down in this Bill, become the property of the South African Railways and Harbours. If he cannot give us this assurance, then the Minister had no right to pretend to the House that this Bill only dealt with land to be bought exclusively from farmers. When buying land from the farmer the Minister wants to avail himself of his expropriation Act, but when he buys plots of ground from large bodies for huge amounts, for millions of pounds, a different procedure is followed. If one talks about the Wanderers on the Rand today, the person one talks to closes one eye and opens the other wide. The impression created on the Witwatersrand is that the Wanderers …

Will the hon. member tell me what that has to do with this Clause?

The Wanderers have ground which has to be bought on behalf of the Railways. This Clause deals with such purchases.

This Clause has nothing to do with the purchase of land.

May I be allowed to read Clause 2?

This Clause only deals with the question of the amount of compensation.

Compensation for what?

For land which has been expropriated.

Exactly, that’s my point. When the Minister buys land from a man on the platteland he uses his expropriation right to the full; under this Clause the matter can be settled in court if the price does not exceed £750. Is not this a case of the Minister having made a promise to the owners of the Wanderers grounds that he would introduce this Bill to satisfy them, because if the price is fixed in court they will get five or seven times as much as they would get if the Railways had availed themselves of their expropriation rights?

The owner of the land can demand arbitration?

Let us read the Clause. Clause 2 reads as follows—

1. “(4) Should any dispute arise as to the amount of such compensation, the matter shall be determined by action instituted by the owner or occupier of such land, if the amount claimed be less than seven hundred and fifty pounds, in the magistrate’s court for the district in which such land is situate, or if the amount claimed be seven hundred and fifty pounds or more, in the Division of the Supreme Court within whose area of jurisdiction the land is situate.”

I shall be glad to be told that I am wrong, and I should like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that he does not intend to abuse this Clause. If I am making a mistake I think the House will agree that I am fully entitled to make that mistake. I fail to appreciate that this Bill will not be used to buy that piece of ground, and other land and plots in the Johannesburg area. That is how I read it, and it is for the lawyers to tell me that I am wrong. I object for this reason; I say that the individual on the platteland is deprived of his rights, and here, where one is dealing with a large body, preferential treatment is applied. There has been a tremendous fuss made in Johannesburg about the Wanderers grounds and the hon. the Minister and his General Manager are the only two people who know why they want to buy the Wanderers grounds. No commission has expressed the view that it is essential for the Railways to buy the Wanderers grounds. On the contrary, it is the private opinion of the Minister and the General Manager that they must have these grounds which would save the building of an extra line between Johannesburg and Krugersdorp, or between Pretoria and Germiston. It would appear to me that the Wanderers grounds are going to cost millions of pounds, and I do not think the country is going to benefit by the Railways buying that piece of ground; only a certain section will benefit. That is my objection and I say that this reply which the Minister has given me is an evasive reply. Unless he tells the House what the position is he must not blame me and others for having had that suspicion ever since he started talking about the Wanderers grounds. He said once that he was going to get the Wanderers grounds, no matter what it cost, and it seems to me that this Clause is nothing but a bit of sugar to induce those people not to kick any longer against the purchase of the Wanderers. The hon. Minister has given us to understand that he is going to take the Wanderers grounds, but he tells the House that it is not in the public interest to let it be known what he is doing. The people living round about the Wanderers have been told that they must move because the land is required for Railway expansion purposes, but the Minister does not tell the House that. For the sake of the Government’s reputation, which the Minister is now jeopardising, the House should now be told very definitely which ground he is going to buy, in view of the fact that he has already intimated to private individuals that he is going to buy that particular ground. Before this Clause is passed the Minister must give us that assurance. If he cannot give us that assurance, then I am afraid I cannot associate myself with this Clause, nor can I agree with him. [Time limit.]

I am much impressed by the eloquence of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) in his defence of the Wanderers, but he is completely off the rails in regard to this clause. This clause amends Section 39 of the original Act which has nothing whatever to do with this question of expropriation. Section 39 has nothing to do with expropriation—all it deals with is cases of forcible entry on a farmer’s land. So that the House can be perfectly clear …

Will you give the House an assurance about the Wanderers Grounds?

If the hon. member wants me to give an assurance at this stage that I won’t take the Wanderers, I cannot give him that. The question whether the Wanderers will be taken over has nothing to do with the clause which the House is considering. The Wanderers Grounds can only be dealt with on the question of expropriation, and I think the hon. member should raise it on the Part Appropriation Bill. Section 39 which we are now asking the House to amend reads as follows: … The first sub-section simply says that in the case of a breakdown the Railways have to do the best they can in that particular area to repair the line as soon as possible. I shall read the clause. What is of importance is sub-section (iii). There is a proviso, too, but I don’t think that is apropos of the discussion. Now the particular clause reads as follows:—

1. 39.
   1. (1) In case of a wash-away upon the line or any similar accident the Administration may, without previous permission, enter upon the adjoining lands and may take therefrom such reasonable quantity of earth, rock or other material as may be necessary for the purpose of affecting the necessary repairs, and construct and use thereon such temporary deviations of the line as the Administration may deem necessary.
   2. (2) Whenever, in the opinion of the Administration, the existence upon any land adjoining any line of railway of any tree, bush, growth, fence, embankment or other obstruction is likely to endanger or impede the safe and proper working of such line, or the telegraph or telephone route established in connection therewith, the Administration may, after reasonable notice to the owner or occupier of such private land, remove so much of such tree, bush, growth, fence, embankment or other obstruction as, in the Administration’s opinion, endangers or impedes such proper working: Provided that where, in the opinion of the Administration, such safe and proper working is actually interfered with or endangered by any such tree, bush growth, fence, embankment or ’ other obstruction, the Administration may cause the work which is immediately necessary for the removal of the interference or danger to be undertaken without any such notice aforesaid.
   3. (3) The Administration shall pay compensation to the owner or occupier of the land referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) for any damage which may be done thereto.
   4. (4) On failure of agreement as to the amount of such compensation, the matter shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the law in force in the province in which the land is situated, relating to the expropriation of land by the Government for public purposes.

That is to say that the Railways having helped themselves to some gravel or land …

Or some houses. That is what you are doing, in my constituency, near the Wanderers.

The Wanderers have nothing to do with it; this is not a case of a breakdown. We do not acquire any land here. We are not buying land under this clause—we are not expropriating land. All we are doing here is to help ourselves to some sand or gravel or something like that in order to effect immediate repairs to a railway line.

That’s not all.

No; we have to pay compensation to the farmer after the thing is settled.

Or to the townsman as well. They want to be included.

We have to pay compensation to the occupier or the owner of the land.

Or to both.

Now the position is that in the past when there was any dispute the matter had to go to arbitration. Now, in the case of forcible entry on a farmer’s land under the conditions I have described the amount involved is comparatively small.

That is why you want to increase the Magistrate’s jurisdiction to £750.

We have discussed that, and I know the attorneys have their own views about that. Well, we want to give the farmer the right, if he wishes to go to the magistrate’s court, instead of to arbitration, to do so. If the farmer wants to go to the magistrate’s court instead of to arbitration he can do so. Usually the amounts involved are under £100.

Why don’t you go to court? Why must the farmer go to court?

We are the buyers; if the farmer does not agree with us then we merely follow the usual practice. That is the position as far as this clause is concerned. It has nothing at all to do with the Wanderers or with the expropriation of land, or the purchase or sale of land, it only has to do with one particular condition of affairs—and that is when the Railways forcibly enter upon land and help themselves to something in a hurry in an emergency, so that the service may be carried on as soon as possible. And when it comes to compensating the farmer, we are merely anxious to help the farmer—it is purely to help the farmer …

Isn’t it wonderful?

Yes, the Opposition may smile at that. I wanted to make it compulsory to go to the magistrate’s court, but as the farmers did not like that we said, “Very well, we shall leave it to their option.” I know the lawyers make money out of the farmers, both in the case of arbitration and in the case of court proceedings.

So do the Railways.

The Railways belong to my hon. friend.

Do you accept the amendment?

I have agreed to accept this amendment. I thought hon. members understood that this was an agreed amendment. I have taken some trouble to explain the situation because the hon. member for Krugersdorp is jumping to conclusions which I do not think he is justified in jumping to.

I fail to understand how hon. members who are farmers can agree to this amendment. The Minister of Railways comes here and asks the House to agree to the infringement of a man’s private rights. The Minister may perhaps make a temporary deviation of the railway line.

Or a permanent one.

He deviates the line temporarily and if he finds that the deviation is a good one it may possibly become permanent. Anyhow, he deviates the line temporarily and has to pay compensation. The person who has to be paid compensation can choose whether he wants arbitration or whether he wants to go to the magistrate’s court. The result of arbitration will perhaps be that the farmer has to get £100. The farmer takes up the attitude that it is not enough; he wants £500 or £1,000. If the farmer is not satisfied he either has to ask for arbitration or go to court, and if he loses he has to pay all the costs. Now the Minister tells us that that is a general principle of law. It is not so. If the Minister would study the Irrigation Act he would see that if a private individual, or if the State, wants a servitude in respect of a water supply—if it is proposed to build a furrow over a farmer’s land, and if it is proposed to pay compensation for that purpose and the owner wants more money, it is not his duty but the duty of the individual who wants the servitude to go to the Water Court, whether that individual be the State or a private individual. Now the Minister of Railways tells the House that it is a general principle of law that the individual who asks for compensation has to go to court. No, we should treat the Railways on the same basis as any individual. If they want to make use of a person’s land and there is a dispute about compensation, they should go to court. If the farmer says that he is not prepared to accept what the Railways want to pay him, then it is the duty of the Railways to prove in court that the amount offered is adequate. Why should the farmer or the owner of the land have to do so? There are laws containing that principle, but we take up the attitude—and I hope the Minister will support that point of view—that we want to protect private rights.

I think the House is very likely giving away a great principle. I am rather suspicious about the Minister, and I would like to ask him about my constituency. Is there any nigger in the woodpile in this Bill?

No.

Well, for a long time the Railways have been trying to get hold of some flats near the Wanderers in a roundabout way. People in these flats—the majority of them are returned soldiers—were given notice to quit. I had to go down on a Sunday to quieten these people down, but the S.A. Railways were quite prepared to put these people into the streets.

I don’t think that matter is relevant to this clause.

I think that is what they are trying to do by this Bill. I stopped that. Now, is this a backhanded way of doing it? This land is surrounding the Wanderers and we are very suspicious because when it comes to the Wanderers …

Raise it on the Part Appropriation Bill.

Yes, I know. But can this Bill be used for expropriation?

No, this clause cannot be used.

I am not satisfied with the position at all and I am not satisfied with the way the Railways are dealing with my constituency. And I should like to have a statement from the Minister that he will not under this Bill expropriate any ground in the Hospital constituency.

Not under this clause.

Under this particular amending Act; will he give that assurance?

Yes.

I am glad the Minister of Railways has accepted the amendment in which the occupant or the owner of land is given the option of demanding arbitration. I fail to understand why this provision should be made. We have a provision in the law that if there is a flood and the line is washed away the Railways can take land or gravel from the farmer’s land and afterwards pay compensation for it. In accordance with the provisions of the law the amount of compensation to be paid is to be fixed by arbitration. The Minister now amends the law and tells us that he is doing this for the good of the farmer. If there is a wash-away in a town or anywhere else the Minister can use the provisions of this Act and take soil or even deviate the railway line. It affects the people in the towns just as much as it affects people on the platteland, but at the moment I am not concerned with the people in the towns. Let other hon. members deal with that—that’s their business. The point I want to make, however, is that the existing principle in the Act has answered well in the past; why should the Minister want to make a change? The Minister at first wanted to take away the privelge of arbitration and compel people to go to the Magistrate’s Court, there to have the question of their compensation settled. I am glad the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment to give the occupant or the owner of the land the right either to go to the Magistrate’s Court or to arbitration. This applies to compensation up to an amount of £750, and if the amount involved exceeds £750 the owner of the land can either demand arbitration or go to the High Court. I just want to say this to the Minister, that a Magistrate’s Court Bill was introduced and referred to a Select Committee, and in that Bill the magistrate’s jurisdiction does not exceed £200. The Minister now makes it £750 and tells us that he is doing so in order to assist the farmer. But the object is not to assist the farmer. The whole intention is to get as many of these cases before the magistrate as possible because most of the magistrates are favourably disposed towards the Government. If a question is referred to arbitration we find that arbitration is more disposed to giving the farmer what he is entitled to; that is why the Administration prefers to go to the Magistrate’s Court. In my constituency we had the case of a driver of a big Railway bus, with a trailer attached to it, who turned off the Railway into the main road without signalling his intention of doing so, with the result that a motor car ran into the bus and two people were killed. The Administration sent an attorney from the Rand to Montagu to defend the bus driver, not because the Administration was so fond of the bus driver but because it knew that it would have to pay compensation because of the negligence of this bus driver. The attorney who acted on behalf of the widow of the deceased was not allowed to put any questions when the enquiry was held because the Public prosecutor was in attendance. The attorney representing the Administration produced all kinds of records and the magistrate found the bus driver “not guilty”. Everyone knew he was guilty, there was no question about it. The Railway Administration tried to frighten the widow. She decided, however, to go to the High Court, and she put in her pleadings, whereupon the Administration paid her £5,000 compensation plus all costs. The Administration does not like a case to be referred to arbitration. Arbitrators know the value of land, and they see to it that justice is done to the farmer. Similarly, they also do justice to the townsman, and that is why the Minister prefers to compel people in cases where the amount involved is less than £750 to go to the magistrate’s court. The Minister himself admits that in 99 per cent. of the cases the amounts involved are less than £750. The Minister wants to compel the farmer to go to the magistrate’s court. Anyhow, I am grateful to him for having accepted the amendment, but I still think that the amount of £750 is too high for the magistrate’s court. Under our ordinary law the magistrate’s jurisdiction does not exceed £200, and I think the Minister should have stopped at that. In my thirty years’ experience of our courts I have never yet found the magistrate’s court giving a farmer any advantage over the Government, but if one goes to arbitration one does find that the farmer gets the advantage. I know that the Minister of Railways is in favour of arbitration. Still, I am satisfied if the option is left to the farmer. A request has been put forward for payment to be made in advance. I don’t know whether that is possible. I think this principle has been fairly generally accepted. The Divisional Council, for instance, takes a road if it needs it, and pays afterwards. I don’t think that is unfair, particularly in the case of wash-aways on the Railways. In any case the position is that the law as it was, was quite acceptable and there was no need for the Minister to introduce this amendment. This increase in the magistrate’s court jurisdiction to £750 is not acceptable. I do not believe the Minister has introduced this with the object of helping the farmers—don’t let him come and tell me that that was what he had in mind.

The Minister has explained to us that this amendment only concerns a little bit of soil or gravel which the Railways may require in connection with a wash-away. I should have been glad if he had given all the facts to the House because we would then have been able to judge. The law in this connection reads as follows—

It may be any embankment, a dam wall or anything else.

So this goes beyond the question of a wash-away.

I read that out to the House.

But the Minister in his reply did not explain that to the House. This amendment goes beyond the scope of an ordinary wash-away. I am prepared, however, to support the amendment. At first I objected to the amendment of the Act. The Minister discussed the matter with me privately, and the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) put his amendment before me and asked me whether I approved of it and whether I would be willing to support it if he moved it. I agreed to do so. I am satisfied with the amendment with this proviso, that I would like the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court to be restricted to £200. The Minister said that as a rule the amounts involved were small amounts of £75 to £100. If that is so, why then give the magistrate’s court such great powers of discretion?

Clause 3 of the Act already gives that discretion.

It is given in regard to expropriation. I am coming to that. I was just going to ask the Minister whether he would be prepared so to amend the law that the owner of the land would have the same option of going to court or to arbitration where expropriation of land was at issue. It is no more than fair to give the owner that right. In the event of a wash-away if some obstruction or some other type of danger has to be removed from the line, if an embankment or some other obstruction has to be broken down, because it constitutes a danger to the Railways, and a question like that can be referred to arbitration or to the Magistrate’s Court, then surely similar provision can also be made in regard to expropriation of land? I do not think it unfair to ask these things from the owner of land, because it is necessary to have the Railways, but when the Railways infringe on a man’s land the owner must have the choice of either going to arbitration or to court. If the owner is not prepared to accept the Administration’s offer, he has only one option and that is to sue the Administration in the Magistrate’s Court, which has jurisdiction to an amount of £750. We can argue as much as we like but my experience goes to show that magistrates generally regard themselves as the protectors of the interests of the State. They are the Government’s chief officers in certain areas, and they look upon it as their duty to protect the Government and to whitewash any acts committed by the Government. The magistrate naturally is more disposed to give the Railway Administration the benefit of any doubt when an argument arises. I shall be very grateful, and the public generally will also be grateful, if the land owner in cases of expropriation can also be given that right.

The hon. member cannot go into that question now because the Committee must confine itself to the clause.

If the principle can be accepted in the one case then to my mind it can also be accepted in the other case. I am quite satisfied with the amendment and I am willing to support it, but I should be grateful if the Minister would agree to accept a further amendment, namely, that the Railway Administration, which is the interested party—well, expropriating land is not to the interest of the owner of the land, it is to the interest of the Railway Administration. It is not the owner of the land who is interested in, or to whose advantage it is to have a tree cut down or to have an embankment removed. The Railway Administration is the party interested, and if the owner and the Administration are unable to agree on the amount of compensation to be paid, and if the owner wants to go to arbitration or to the Magistrate’s Court, the Railway Administration in any event should pay the costs. Why should the owner pay—why should he pay even if he does lose the case? He is not the interested party, the Railway Administration is the party to whose interest it is to have these things done. All these things are in the interest of the Railway Administration. Why then should not the Railway Administration be called upon to pay the costs of the arbitration or the costs of an action before a Court of Law. If the Minister is willing to accept such an amendment we would greatly appreciate it and it would give a considerable degree of satisfaction to the House. The Minister is threatened with a serious storm by members who feel that the Administration must not go too far. The Minister should use his discretion carefully and should not interfere too far with the interests of private owners.

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has made the allegation that we on this side of the House are prepared without raising our voices to allow the rights of land owners to be curtailed by this amending Bill. As we see the position that is not the case at all. The Minister has already given us an assurance, and we accept his assurance, because it is in accordance with the facts, that this Bill does not aim in any way at interfering with the rights of land owners. The only object of this Bill is to simplify the fixing of compensation due to certain people and we are not called upon at this stage to surrender any existing rights. We accept the amendment which has been proposed. The farmer or the owner of the land now has an option. Under the existing law the magistrate in case of expropriation has jurisdiction up to £750. That jurisdiction is not increased by this clause, but the land owner now has the option of asking for arbitration as well. He can therefore either go to arbitration or to the magistrate’s court, and he is left the option of saying which court he selects. Then we come to the question of costs. Under the existing law the farmer never has to pay all the costs of arbitration. As a rule, if the arbitration court grants an amount less than that asked for by the land owner he has not got to pay the costs of the Railway Administration. At the most he has to pay his own costs and perhaps certain of the arbitrators’ fees, but never the costs of the Administration. That is why we are so keen on this clause in regard to arbitration being retained for the benefit of the land owner. As the law stands today the land owner never has to pay all the costs in regard to arbitration. We know that arbitration is often expensive, and the land owner has the option of selecting to go to arbitration or to the magistrate’s court. The Minister may, however, be willing to consider another suggestion. Under the old Proclamation of 1902 and 1903 the magistrate was given the right to call in two assessors. He could call them in and ask them to assist him in determining the amount of compensation to be paid. I want to suggest that that should also be embodied in this Bill. But if the new Magistrate’s Court Bill which has been referred to a Select Committee is accepted, the magistrate will in every case have the right to call in the assistance of two assessors. We therefore feel we are entitled to support this Bill with the amendment accepted by the Minister because the Bill in no way curtails or interferes with the land owner’s rights; on the contrary it facilitates the process for the obtaining of compensation as compared with the position existing today, and the owner will have the option of going to the magistrate’s court or of asking for arbitration—he will be able to go to the High Court—it will merely depend on the amount involved.

I wish to move an amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker). That amendment has already been accepted by the Minister and I now want to move this. To add at the end—

That will solve all our difficulties. Why should the farmer or the owner have to bear the costs? I do not know what the Administrative Act in the Transvaal is.

I am sorry but the hon. member cannot move that amendment as it contemplates increased expenditure.

Then I want to ask the Minister to move it.

The hon. the Minister cannot move it either without a recommendation from the Governor General.

I think the Minister should reconsider the whole matter. He is now depriving people of certain rights and when he has taken away those rights, the people concerned, if they are not satisfied, and if a court action results, may have to pay the costs. The position in the Cape Province is not as described by the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson). We have arbitration proceedings here in regard to a road being made over one’s property. In such a case if one objects to the amount offered for compensation, and one demands arbitration and gets a little less than the amount offered, one has to pay all costs connected with the arbitration. Consequently, so far as the Cape is concerned, the position is different from that described by the hon. member for Ermelo. I think the hon. the Minister should consider the whole matter. If important developments take place in the future the Minister will find that some of the farmers will be very hard hit, and I think it is most unfair to deprive a man of his private rights, and if that man defends his rights and asks for compensation, to make him pay costs in connection with his case.

I wish to associate myself with the plea put up by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) and I am doing so as a man who has experience of the railway running over my farm. I want to say at once that a railway line is not a blessing to the owner of the land over which it runs—it is a sacrifice. The owner has all the difficulties in connection with the fencing off of his land. He has to pay part of the expense in connection with fencing off the railway line. The railway line is run for the benefit of the State and not for the benefit of the farmer, and if there is a wash-away and the State offers compensation which the farmer refuses to accept, then it is the duty of the State to go to court and bear the costs. That is why I want to support the hon. member’s plea. I feel the Minister should accept the adjournment of the debate so that the Minister can get authorisation for the Additional Expenditure. The Administration should bear the costs.

May I be allowed to support the plea put forward by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie)? This is a very important matter to farmers and I want to ask the Minister to be good enough to report progress so that he may obtain the consent of the Governor General to overcome the difficulty mentioned by the Chairman. If the Minister is not prepared to do that then I would suggest that he might introduce the necessary amendment in the Senate in order to satisfy us on this side of the House. If the Minister undertakes to do so he will give general satisfaction.

The hon. the Minister was very considerate in regard to the amendment which he has already accepted but I would like him to realise that he will not always be occupying his present post, and that the present management will not always be there to apply the law. The law will also apply to other parts of the platteland—it will apply to small bits of ground, valuable bits of ground, where a few feet of ground or an embankment, a fence or a dam may have very much more value than in the Karroo or on the platteland, where people have large farms. The Act will also apply to other public bodies, and in pleading with the Minister to make concessions in regard to the costs we do so particularly with a view to assisting the man who has no extensive lands, and who has no great means, and who, if he has to stand on his own, will feel it is impossible for him to start an action against the Administration. It will also have the effect of making the officials of the Administration a little more considerate if they know that if an action arises, either in a court of law or before an arbitrator, the Administration will have to bear the costs. It will make the Administration a good deal more considerate in respect of claims, and I want to appeal to the Minister to accept this further amendment. He can afford it. The Railway Administration is a powerful body which makes large profits. If an individual sues the Railway Administration, I would almost say that it is tantamount to suing the most powerful financial concern in the country, a concern which has all the Government attorneys and all the legal talent at its disposal, a disadvantage which is immediately felt by the man who is faced with the choice of starting an action against a most powerful Administration. If the Minister accepts this amendment his officials in future will be a little more considerate and they will not act unduly harshly or unfairly towards land owners, and in this connection I again have in mind the owners of small bits of land which perhaps are valuable.

I think that I had better try to get this House back to reason once more. We are on a very small Clause, on a very small feature of an important Bill, on account of it having been omitted to state who should pay costs in law suits. The points that have now been raised, really surprise me, and the latest proposition is an interesting one indeed. The position is this: We take say some gravel or a tree or some wood from a farmer on the occasion of an emergency. Later we take steps to compensate that farmer. The suggestion now made is that if a farmer does not agree to our offer of compensation and decides to go to court to determine whether the amount of compensation is reasonable or not, we shall pay his costs in any event; that, I must say, is a singularly bright idea. Just imagine what it means. No farmer, if he had any wits about him at all, would promptly agree to our first offer. He would at once say that we would be mulcted in a great deal of costs if we took him to court, and …

Surely there are honest farmers.

Of course there are honest farmers.

You said: “No farmer if he had his wits about him.”

Of course, I do not wish to impugn the honour of any farmer. The hon. member knows quite well what I mean. Let me say this, that if the farmer himself did not think of questioning our offer, his attorney would in the course of his business be compelled to do so. The hon. member knows quite well the sense in which I meant the remark. I do not question the honour of the farmer. Why should I? But this suggestion is that we should pay the costs, whether we are right or wrong, and if we do not get heavily mulcted in costs under such an arrangement, I should be surprised. I do not want to go into the merits of the question, but that is something I cannot accept and will not accept. This clause deals with a very small part of the Bill. The reason for this suggestion of £750 in Clause 2 is that it is the same level of compensation which was agreed to by the House in Section 3 of the principal Act; in that section the House laid down £750 as the level below which the case should go to court instead of arbitration. If the House so desires I am prepared to drop this clause altogether. The clause is of no advantage to the Railways. It was designed, and I am asking you to accept it, entirely in the interests of people who have claims against the Railways. Here I am actually helping farmers with claims against the Railways. Now the hon. member wants me to amend the clause in a most ridiculous way, and one that cannot be entertained, though if he wishes it I can drop the clause. I think we should bring Section 39 of the Act into line with Section 3. Then we would have the Act laying down the same thing throughout. The matter would have been attended to in Section 39 if the legal people had noticed this point. It was an oversight on their part, and the intention in this clause is to remedy that oversight now. If as the result of the passing of this clause and our experience of its working, we want to do something else at some future time, then we can always consider it and review the amendment if new legislation is necessary. All I ask is that this measure should be passed now, and that we should see how it works. I shall not in any case, be able to accept any amendments of the kind that have been indicated.

I should like the Minister to try and realise that the farmers have had bitter experience of the matter of compensation so far as the Railways are concerned, and they have not always received fair treatment. The Minister has now withdrawn his allegation but he said a peculiar thing, namely, that the farmer who uses commonsense will not immediately accept the Railway’s offer of compensation but will try and get more by going to court, if our suggestion is accepted. I leave it at that—I do not know whether the Minister intended casting a reflection on the farmer’s honesty or not. He says that he did not mean that. Well, I accept that, but now we have to draw his attention to what the Railways have done in the past, and we have to point out that the attitude of the Railway Administration, not only towards the farmers but also towards other people, has not always been very considerate so far as claims for compensation against the Railway Administration have been concerned. On the contrary, one can say that in a hundred cases out of a hundred the Railways, whether they were responsible or not, even when it has been perfectly clear that they were responsible for a particular happening, in the first instance refused to pay. They come along with all kinds of schemes to scare people off and to force them to accept a smaller amount, and only those people who have the courage eventually to say that they are going to court are paid a fair amount of compensation. That sort of thing is very distasteful to me. It places the Railway Administration in a false light when they try to reduce the amount of compensation to poor people who may have suffered serious damage. I myself in my capacity as an attorney have had experience of that kind of thing. The Railway Administration refuses to pay and tries to bring down the amount as much as possible, and only when it sees that the man concerned is going to court does it agree to pay adequate compensation. The sooner the Minister brings about a change in the attitude of the Railway Administration in this regard the better. This is a distasteful way of doing poor people out of money to which they are entitled. In regard to damage inflicted on farmers, we often find that the Railway Administration by building a bridge or by building a furrow, turns the water from its natural course into a different direction which often results in a farmer suffering heavy losses. I have a case here which I myself investigated. On the 1st December I wrote a personal letter to the Minister about this case—it was a case in my own constituency. It is the case of a certain Z. Minnaar of the farm “Deelfontein”. I myself went into the matter and made an investigation, and I saw with my own eyes the damage done to the farmer by the Railway Administration because that farmer’s water had been turned away from its natural course into a different direction. The Railway Administration built a totally ineffective small bridge, with the result that every time there is a heavy rainfall the water cannot pass underneath the bridge and it is turned in a different direction, with the result that the poor farmer suffers heavy damage on his lands which lie in that direction. On the 1st December, 1943, I wrote fully to the Minister about the case. Three days later, on the 4th December, I received a reply from the Administrative Secretary in which he informed me that the Minister of Transport wished to acknowledge receipt of the letter about the wash-aways on the particular farm, and the damage done to the lands, and at the same time he informed me that a further communication would be addressed to me as soon as possible. The “as soon as possible” period has not arrived yet. This is nearly March and the damage was done on the 1st December, or rather it was on the 1st December that I wrote about it, and since then further serious damage has been done, but I have received no other reply. I, therefore, want the Minister to realise what the farmers’ difficulties are, and why they want, wherever possible, to have a hundred per cent. protection when they have to deal with the Railway Administration. In regard to the case which I have mentioned, I hope the Minister will pay compensation and that the Railway Administration will take immediate steps so that that farmer will not have to suffer heavy losses every time there is a heavy downfall.

I feel that the Railway Administration has always treated the farmers unsympathetically. In many instances bridges have been built in such a way that the water dams up in one place and causes considerable damage and difficulty to the farmers. I can mention one instance in my area of a small farmer who had only 30 morgen under irrigation; the Railways have now concentrated all that water under a bridge, with the result that a large proportion of that man’s lands have been washed away. The Railways were asked to pay compensation and it took a lot of trouble to make the Railway Administration realise that farmer’s difficulties. In such cases the Railway Administration is not taking up a sympathetic attitude, and that is why we feel we must protect the rights of the farmers. The farmers are not opposed to the Railways, but the Railway Administration very often takes up an unsympathetic attitude towards the rights of the farmers.

I wish to associate myself with the opinion expressed by many hon. members on this side of the House. I represent an urban constituency and this is not an instance of what has only happened to the farmer. In Gezina, where about 25,000 people are living in a congested area, a railway line was built not long ago right through the constituency, and it will be easily understood that the railway line runs along the properties of perhaps thousands of people. When the railway line was built we found that the Railway Administration had taken options over the necessary properties. The matter was put off and put off and I came into contact with any number of cases of people whom I contacted and who wanted my assistance. They did not know what to do. They did not know when there would be an arbitration court, and they did not know whether the Railway was going to buy their property. In those days properties elsewhere were going up in price and the general feeling was that if they had to sell at the price fixed and perhaps only be paid in six months’ or a year’s time the price of property by that time would have gone up to such an extent that they would be the losers, and they would not know where they stood. We are glad that the Minister is prepared to meet our request to a large extent. I am particularly thinking of my own constituency where thousands of the people are Railway workers and Railway officials. Surely it is our object to encourage people to own their own land and develop their own property. If the interests of the Railways in the constituency are to clash with the interests of thousands of the officials living there, then surely it is going to be very difficult for the officials to pick a quarrel with their own employer? The Railway man will be afraid to go to court or to ask for arbitration, and if in addition to that a man may be involved in costs, the position will be quite impossible. We appreciate the fact that the Minister has met us in that respect, but I want to point out that there are many Railway officials in my constituency who are greatly interested in this matter, and who should be protected.

I now understand that this compensation under clause 2 only refers to cases of wash-aways. Hon. members know the law, but I know the circumstances, and I therefore know that it is possible for an artificial wash-away to be caused, and to be used as a reason to obtain possession of certain ground. The Railway Administration may avail itself of such an opportunity, it may use such an artificial wash-away as a means to get possession of the land which this Bill refers to. I have in mind at the moment the sub-way in Smit Street. If an inch and a half of rain falls the water stands so high that a motor car would be submerged right up to its hood, and the Minister of Railways would then be able to avail himself of the opportunity to get hold of the Wanderers Grounds and of all the other plots adjoining the Wanderers. Hon. members know the law, but I know the conditions, and I want an assurance from the Minister that he is not going to try and get hold of the Wanderers Grounds and surrounding ground in that way.

The hon. member must not proceed along those lines.

I want to ask the Minister to give us an assurance that he will not try to obtain the Wanderers and the surrounding land under the provisions of this Bill for Railway purposes.

Order, order.

I am sorry I am out of order, but there is this danger, that under this Bill the Railway Administration.…

The hon. member is out of order.

I quite appreciate that we are only dealing with cases of wash-aways here, but it only wants a little bit of rain for a wash-away to take place in that particular neighbourhood and I am afraid the Minister will then be able to use this Bill in order to deprive people of their rights. The Minister gives us a halfhearted reply but the House wants an assurance from him. If that is not his intention let him give us an assurance. Failing that he must forgive me if I say that I am afraid that that will be the case and that there will be that danger.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clause and the Title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with an amendment.

Amendment and Clause 2 considered.

Is the Minister in a position now to reply to the question which I have insisted on putting in the Committee stage. I shall be glad if he will reply to that question.

I understand that the question relates to the Wanderers Grounds in Johannesburg. It would be entirely out of order to discuss that now.

Amendment put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill to be read a third time on 22nd February.

When this debate was interrupted I was saying that I thought the payment made by the Railway Administration to non-Europeans is a scandal. I was saying also that I agreed with the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) that the conditions under which some of the Europeans had to work were also scandalous—that it was absolutely impossible for them to find decent amenities of living. I, too, would like to see some improvements in the living conditions, and I hope the Railway Administration will put into practice the Blue Print, that was envisaged by the predecessor to the present Minister when he suggested that a large measure of the Railway Administration’s funds should be used for the purpose of finding decent living conditions for the poorer paid section of our Railway employees. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) suggested that the Railway Administration should pay to its artisans the rate ruling for artisans in similar grades in outside employment. My objection to the Labour Party is that it always overplays its hand. No reference was made to the fact that the majority of the artisans in the Railway service—I am thinking now of the artisans in the mechanical department, and also in the transportation service—do in fact receive quite a substantial grant or bonus on top of the ruling artisan rates prevailing in the Administration. The wage plus the bonus does not compare unfairly with what is paid to artisans outside. I quite agree that they are fully entitled to that, but my complaint against the Labour Party is that they champion the cause of the more highly skilled Railway workers. In fact, they champion the cause merely of the more highly skilled and more highly paid, and they do not give sufficient attention to the arguments raised on behalf of the non-European or coloured sections. I have not yet heard a single word from the Labour Party about the scandalous wages paid in this area to coloured people—I have not heard them say a single word about the fact that coloured men and their families are compelled to live on 3s. 3d. per day without any other basis. 3s. 3d. per day is the pay of some the coloured employees of the Railway Administration. It cannot be justified. If social security is to be devised within an economic system, that permits wages like this, then social security is a myth, and a figment of imagination of some distorted vision. We have to do something more and I hope that the Parliamentary Labour Party will sponsor the cause of the non-European and coloured employee in the Railway Administration. I learn with regret that the Labour Party is not prepared to give the non-Europeans even the protection under the Act which is extended to any employee—they do not even recognise them as employees. How can they reconcile their action with the action of the present Minister of Railways who walked out of a previous Ministerial position because he wanted the claims of the coloured employees to be recognised. I am sure that the principle for which he was prepared to give up his position in the Ministry should be followed by the Labour Party. In conclusion I should like to raise one particular point. We know there are many funds and benefits which are subsidised by the Railway Administration. The sick fund is of great benefit to members of the Railway Administration. It is an accepted fact that the Railway Administration subsidies the funds of the sick fund to more than 50 per cent. There is more money in the sick fund contributed by the Railway Administration than by the members. Now the ruling given by the Minister’s predecessor on an occasion when an employee of the Railway Administration who had contributed for more than twenty-five years to the sick fund, and who was pensioned off as a result of an injury, sustained during the course of his service, but not arising out of his service, caused a good deal of dissatisfaction. This man had to be pensioned because he could no longer hold his employment. He had to go on pension at the age of 48 and he made application to this House asking for the addition of sick fund benefit to be given to him. The Railway Administration in its regulation lays it down that no employee under 50 can enjoy the benefits of the sick fund. I was a member of the Select Committee which recommended that this particular employee should be entitled to the benefits of the sick fund but your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, ruled that it would be an infringement of the rights of Parliament to interfere with the sick fund. [Time limit.]

I have only a few minutes left before business is suspended and these few minutes I should like to use to touch briefly on some minor points. As the Minister knows many more passengers use our Railways today than the Administration can cope with. The Railways even write to members of Parliament asking us to use our influence to induce people to use the Railways less. Now I have been wondering whether it would not be possible to reduce certain types of passengers. I refer to the soldiers who continually travel up and down over our railways on vacation. Let me explain the position. If a soldier returns from Up North where he has been fighting, I say give him every possible facility so that he can travel wherever he wants to go. But there are a large number of people who are not really soldiers who are employed on clerical duties in the army, and who merely, because they wear uniform, are classified as soldiers. They travel all over on our trains.

And it seems that that is all they do.

Yes, it really looks as if that is their job. If we travel by train we always come across some of those soldiers on the train. One of them told me the other day that he had been given ten days’ leave so he had decided to come from Johannesburg to Cape Town to stay with an aunt because his railway ticket would cost him less than a ten days’ stay in Johannesburg. He was one of those soldiers doing a clerical job. They even come from Johannesburg to spend a week-end in Cape Town. As I have said, let us give every possible facility to the people who have been up North to fight, but these other people are clerks and they are not soldiers in the sense of being fighters. They occupy clerical jobs in the army and they are to a very large extent responsible for the many passengers travelling over our railways. If those people had been employed in their ordinary private capacity they would not have used the railways so much. If they had not been given the privileges which soldiers enjoy today they would have travelled much less than they are doing today. But today they feel an urge to travel which is due to the cheap railway tickets they can get every time they go on leave. It is a temptation to them to take a long journey by rail.

Strengthened by a good meal I shall now resume my speech. Just a few words more on the subject I was discussing, namely the unnecessary travelling by soldiers who are not really soldiers, but who hold clerical posts in the Department of Defence. I have given a few instances to show the way these people travel up and down. I can also mention other cases which I have personally come across, such as the case of an individual on a fortnight’s holiday. After having had his holiday he returned by train, and when he got back he was told that his services were not yet required and that he could have another fortnight’s holiday, so he again took the train and returned to the place where he had been spending his holiday. A friend of mine was coming in by bus this morning when he got into conversation with a young fellow in uniform. He asked him whether he was here on leave and the young fellow replied: “No, but I have been sent here in connection with the Cavalcade,” so my friend asked him what his job was and his reply was that he was just assisting here and there. He had not asked to be sent here—he did not want to come here because his home was not here, but he had simply been sent. The Department of Defence does that sort of thing with the result that it is placing an even greater burden on the already sorely tried Minister of Railways, instead of helping him out of his difficulties. If that sort of thing is stopped it will help the Minister of Railways very much. Now I want to say a few words about the stupendous event which has overtaken South Africa. I refer to the arrival here on Saturday morning of Noel Coward. Hon. members will ask me why I want to talk about that. Well, on Saturday morning Sir Evelyn Baring, the Governor of Southern Rhodesia, and Mr. Noel Coward, the well-known crooner, arrived here.

What is a crooner?

A crooner is a man or a person who sings in a peculiar way because he has something wrong with his throat. He differs from a Cabinet Minister who talks peculiarly because there is something wrong with his intelligence.

What is a “crooner” in Afrikaans?

Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us this evening after he has been to the performance for which he has to pay £5 for a seat, that the Afrikaans word is “neuriesanger”. Well, this Mr. Noel Coward and the Governor of Southern Rhodesia arrived here on Saturday morning. The Prime Minister sent a representative to meet Mr. Noel Coward. I don’t know whether he sent a representative to meet the Governor of Southern Rhodesia, but when the train entered Cape Town station, there was a magnificent private coach for Noel Coward and his private secretary. They could not travel like ordinary people in an ordinary train, they could not travel in the same way as a highly placed British Lord, or a refugee member of a Royal House, in an ordinary compartment. No, they had to have a special coach. Well, perhaps it is the right thing that he should have a special coach because our Ministers travel in special coaches and they do not even know how to croon, but the Governor of Southern Rhodesia did not have a special coach—he had to travel in an ordinary coupe like any ordinary member of Parliament. We almost thought that the Pretoria station master had made a mistake and had taken Noel Coward for the Governor of Southern Rhodesia. He must have arrived on the Pretoria station in so stately a manner that the station master made a mistake with the result that he was given a special coach and the Governor a coupe. Whatever the position, this best or second best crooner in the world was given a special coach by our Railways. I was very anxious to know when I heard all this who this Mr. Noel Coward was, and I went to the library and turned up Sir Seymour Hicks’ book—Sir Seymour Hicks is the well-known English actor. He wrote a book “Gone with the Wind up”. Sir Seymour Hicks is eighty years old; he is the doyen of his profession, and in his book he bitterly attacks English actors and actresses who ran away to America when war broke out. I am glad to be able to say that when I had finished the book I had not found Noel Coward’s name in it. But shortly afterwards I read in a newspaper that he was fined £5,000 in England because he had illicitly sent his money to America because he was afraid of German bombs and German confiscation. I don’t think we have ever before given anyone a special coach here, because he was fined £5,000. I also found out that he is not only a crooner, but he is also a dramatist—a man who writes plays. So I thought I would study his books to see if they were so good that he should have a special coach. I managed to get one of his books and I think I ought to read a few extracts from it to let hon. members see whether he ought to have a special coach. I know he is in close touch with the Government, and even if the particular quotation I am going to read does not appeal to all members of Parliament it may perhaps appeal to the two bachelors in the Cabinet, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Mines. Perhaps—I say perhaps—it may be good for them to read it because apparently, or perhaps, they may improve and become more natural. Let me quote this bit—

I hand this to the Minister of Finance to use it as he thinks fit. But if that is not reason enough, for giving Mr. Noel Coward a free special coach perhaps there are other reasons. He is also a poet, he is a very serious poet, and I assume that not only in public but also in private he will let the Cabinet have the benefit of his poetry. He has a special talent, so I understand, for training choirs, and I can quite conceive of his putting the eleven remaining members of the Cabinet through their paces, so that when the Prime Minister leaves for the Imperial Conferences they can take up their stand on the quay, on the spot where passengers on the ships throw paper streamers to the crowds on the quay, and we can imagine our team of Ministers standing there, each with a bit of streamer in his hand. We can picture the choir there, each member with his mouth wide open—one a little wider than the others—singing the refrain—

I can quite imagine the Prime Minister responding from the deck with one of his own poems. Hon. members did not know that in his young days he too was a poet; probably he would respond by singing one of his own poems—

I notice the Minister of Native Affairs is very much affected by this last verse, he is nearly in tears. But I ask hon. members whether this is the type of man to give a special coach? He we completely lost our sense of proportion in South Africa? Have we lost it so much as to make heroes of a Hollywood star and an Adelphi star and other music hall stars? Have we lost our sense of proportion to such an extent that people of that type are given a greater reception than even the Governor General, than even the heads of neighbouring states and that they have special coaches placed at their disposal. The Prime Minister sends his representative to meet those stars at the aerodromes or the railway stations on their arrival. Have we completely lost our sense of proportion in South Africa? Some young official in the Department of Railways whose head had been turned by listening to Noel Coward’s crooning over the wireless may have made a mistake, but I think it is high time we got away from this sort of mad extravagance. The other aspect of Noel Coward’s visit, why he has come here, and whether it was necessary for him to come here, is one which we cannot deal with now; we shall do so on another occasion. I now come to another matter. The Minister told us recently about the difficulties we are experiencing with our locomotives. We have some 500 locomotives which are so antiquated that they should be sent to the workshops for repairs, but they cannot go to the workshops for repairs at present because traffic requirements are such that it is impossible to withdraw them from the service. That may be true—I believe it is true, and I know that the demands made upon the Railways are enormous. I was very surprised to notice a report in the Press this morning, however, stating that we had sold 40 locomotives to Uganda or Nyasaland, or some other Government in Central Africa. At a time when the Minister tells us that it is practically impossible, with the tractive power at his disposal, to do the work required of the Railways, at a time when the farmer or any one wanting to despatch goods by rail knows that it is practically impossible to get his goods despatched at once, and that it often takes days and weeks and longer on account of the necessary rolling stock not being available owing to our tractive power being so small that the trains cannot be made long enough to carry all the goods that have to be carried—at a time like that when the demands on the Railways are greater than ever before, the tractive power of our railways is cut down by I think 40 or 60 locomotives, which are sold to some Government in Central Africa. I do not know what the exact number is, I don’t know whether it is 20, 40 or 60 locomotives, but the point is that at a time when we cannot provide for the needs of our own country, locomotives are sold to neighbouring states. I feel it is not only reprehensible but it is evidence of definite disloyalty on the Minister’s part so far as his duties are concerned, because the Minister is not looking after the interests of South Africa but after the interests of another State, whatever that State may be. I see the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) is here. He made a speech in this House when this debate was on last, about which I want to say a few words. The point he made was that our side of the House did not have the right to object to promotions in the Railway Service because, so he said, the same kind of thing used to occur in the days of the Nationalist Government. I am only trying to put it exactly as he put it. He says that in the days of the Nationalist Party Government he made application for the position of district surgeon at Middelburg, and the Leader of the Opposition on that occasion wrote to him that before he could be appointed to that position he would have to resign his post of Railway Medical Officer. A little later, however, so he says, the same Minister appointed a doctor from Koster as district surgeon at Klerksdorp and that doctor was also appointed as Railway Medical Officer at Klerksdorp. Consequently, the man at Klerksdorp occupied the two positions whereas he, Dr. Eksteen, was not allowed to occupy the two positions at Middelburg. The hon. member asked why, if we wanted a select committee to investigate the position, we restricted it to the last three years—he asked why we did not get the select committee to enquire into the whole position from the very start of the rule of the Nationalist Party. We are quite satisfied to do so, we are quite prepared to go back to any date the hon. member may suggest, and we are quite prepared to have anything the hon. member wants investigated. Let him fix the date, but if he does so he must vote for our amendment. That is my first reply to his speech. We accept his suggestion but then we have the right to expect him to support our amendment. He further said that he was appointed as district surgeon while the other two doctors who had applied for the post were Nationalists.

No.

He said that the Nationalist Party was unable to decide which of the other two doctors they should appoint, and that the Minister subsequently appointed him, Dr. Eksteen. Well, then his whole argument falls away. He accuses the Leader of the Opposition of partiality, but the evidence he has produced) shows that an S.A.P. man was appointed over the heads of two Nationalists.

What happened at Klerksdorp?

I am coming to that. I have no objection to the Leader of the Opposition appointing the hon. member. I have known the hon. member for many years, and I do not know what particular ability the other two doctors had. In appointing the hon. member at Middelburg, the Leader of the Opposition anyhow did not do anything wrong. But that is not my point. What right has the hon. member to accuse the Leader of the Opposition of partiality if the only instance he can give is a case where the Leader of the Opposition went out of his way to appoint an S.A.P. man over the heads of two Nationalists?

A Nationalist was appointed over the heads of four S.A.P.’s at Klerksdorp.

I am coming to Klerksdorp now.

He has no objection to an S.A.P. man being appointed over Nationalists, but if a Nationalist is appointed over the heads of S.A.P.’s then he does object.

At Klerksdorp a Nationalist was appointed over the head of S.A.P.’s. The hon. member says that that was wrong, but when a South African Party man was appointed over the heads of Nationalists it was alright. But, so the hon. member says, the Leader of the Opposition would not allow him to hold the two posts of district surgeon and Railway Medical Officer, while at Klerksdorp the one doctor did not occupy the two posts. I want to remind the hon. member for Middelburg however, of the fact that Railway medical officers are not appointed by the Minister of the Interior, nor are they appointed by the Minister of Railways; they are appointed by the Sick Fund of the Railway Board which is controlled by Railway officials who are elected by their fellow Railway officials. They are the people who make the appointments. And if the hon. member were to enquire into the Klerksdorp case he would, I think, find that the doctor at Klerksdorp was appointed as Railway Medical Officer after he had been appointed as district surgeon by the then Minister of the Interior. Consequently, the then Minister of the Interior had nothing to do with his appointment as Railway Medical Officer, nor did the fact of his being district surgeon have anything to do with the appointment.

What about the policy of appointing two doctors for the two posts?

But surely I have explained that. The position is that at Klerksdorp the man had been appointed as district surgeon and the Railway Sick Fund thereupon on its own initiative appointed the man as Railway Medical Officer. After the appointment had been made the Department of the Interior had no further say because as the hon. member should know a district surgeon can only be dismissed if he neglects his work, or if there are special reasons—which have to be very serious. I think after these few words the hon. member will feel that he should try, because of his sentiments towards this side of the House, not to allow his arguments to get confused. He does sit on the other side of the House, true enough, but his natural sympathy belongs to this side and he should at least try and hide that fact while he sits on the other side.

The hon. the Minister has had a good many criticisms hurled at him since the debate started. I know that it is rather unusual for any member to praise the hon. Minister, but I intend to preface my remarks by congratulating him for having followed my advice. Some little time ago I suggested that the Railway Department should acquire by expropriation or otherwise the land at the head of the bay in Durban, and I am very glad to say—and here I congratulate the Minister on his action—that he has expropriated a good deal of this land. But I think the Minister has only taken half a bite at the cherry, and that there is a great deal of additional land at the head of the bay that should be expropriated. That land is all cut up into small allotments with hovels scattered about—it is not what one might call beneficially occupied. If the department would only expropriate the whole of this land it would be able to lay out a comprehensive scheme at the head of the bay. In this connection I, of course, exclude the land occupied by large factories, and the shops along the main South Coast road. But the whole of that area lends itself to future industrial development, and I consider that the Railway Administration should expropriate the whole of the land. Now is the time to do it; money is cheap and money can be borrowed at a very low rate of interest. I suggest that the Minister makes a whole bite of the cherry, in other words that he expropriates the whole of the land. I have from time to time brought up the question of harbour development, and a great many developments are taking place there. The Minister has hitherto been very reticent in regard to disclosing what is being done, but after all the Durban harbour belongs to the people of Durban, and they are entitled to know just what is going on, but they are absolutely in the dark. The hon. member seeks to excuse himself on the grounds of secrecy being necessitated by the war. But the position has changed somewhat of late. The blackout has been lifted in Durban; and I do not think that this secrecy is any longer justified. It think it is time, too, that the Minister took into his confidence the people of Durban, and members of this House and told them what developments are taking place in Durban bay. I do not want the Minister to come forward with the old-time excuse about the Harbour Advisory Board. I know about the Advisory Board and everyone knows it is a “rubber stamp,” so that I should not like to see the Minister sheltering himself behind it. Another point is this, Mr. Speaker. We would like to know about the available land at the head of the bay. That has always been looked upon as Durban’s industrial expansion area. As a result of an enquiry I made, the hon. the Minister stated that it was intended to use 300 acres of this valuable land for Railway workshops. I do not want the Minister to say that I do not want new workships, as he did last Session. That is not the point. The present workshops are occupying an area of 10 to 20 acres and it is proposed to move them to the head of the bay, and I cannot see the justification for requiring 300 acres for Railway workshops. But possibly the Minister can advance good reasons why the area required should jump from 20 acres to 300 acres, which he is now providing for that purpose. Another point I would like to know is this; whether the Minister would be good enough to enlighten us as to whether any provision is being made at the head of the bay for a ship-building industry. I know that a great many people are opposed to the establishment of a ship-building industry. There are possibly ulterior motives influencing the opposition to the establishment of that industry in South Africa. But I can see in this ship-building industry an outlet for our returned soldiers, and that, in many cases, it will provide careers for them. Furthermore, when once we have established a South African Navy there is the possibility of our being able to construct ships in South Africa for the Navy. I think the Administration should make provision for the start of a ship-building industry, at the head of Durban bay. I think everyone will admit, Mr. Speaker, that Durban is one of the most important strategic harbours in the whole world—that is a proved fact. If any proof were needed it has been furnished during this war. I would only like to add this; Durban is not considered an all-weather port, and when we have boisterous south-west winds, Durban is not considered a port into which ships can gain access with safety. A short while ago the Durban Chamber of Commerce debated this question, and I have before me a report of that meeting. The headlines state: “Durban must be an all-weather port,” and the article goes on to say that it is imperative that Durban be made an all-weather port, and that the Durban Chamber of Commerce had submitted this view in a memorandum to the Shipping Commission. I heartily endorse that idea, and if the Minister wishes to have my advice I am prepared to tell him how it can be made an all-weather port at no very great expense, but not in the way they are going about it now, spending millions of money without any prospect of making it an all-weather port. I am prepared to show the Minister how it can be done.

What about the sharks?

I am afraid the Minister has got into a very frivolous mood after the speech of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), but there is nothing frivolous in what I have to say. I would like to refer to an advertisement appearing in a Durban newspaper, in which the South African Railways and Harbours advertised certain vacancies for architectural assistants, quantity surveyors etc. In these advertisements I do not notice one word stated that any preference will be given to returned soldiers who make application. I think that with all our government appointments, not only those on the Railways, returned soldiers should at least be given consideration. I do not ask any special preference for returned soldiers; it is a question of qualification; but I think that where qualifications are equal then the man who has fought for his country, and done service for his country, should be given a preference. I would like to suggest to the Minister that in future these advertisements announcing vacancies in the service should mention that special consideration will be given to applications from returned soldiers. Now I want to return to a hardy annual, the question of the Railway station in Durban. This is a subject on which successive Ministers have made promises for the last twenty years and when the hon. the Minister was appointed to his present portfolio he came down to Durban and created a wonderful impression by telling people there that Durban not only deserved a new station, but that Durban would have it at once. That was four and a half years ago. I am very glad the Minister has appointed an architect in a consultative capacity to ensure that the design for the new station will be in keeping with the surroundings. I would urge this upon the Minister, that he should get on with the job because the station, as it is at present, is positively dangerous. The long mail trains come in alongside a curved platform, and in some cases the distance from the edge of the platform to the step of the train is 3 ft. It is a positive danger to the public, and I consequently urge the Minister to expedite the building of the new station. Since the closing of the Mediterranean the two principal ports in South Africa, Cape Town and Durban, have been hard put to it to cope with the tremendous increase in traffic. Speaking for the port of Durban—I leave it to someone else to speak for Cape Town—I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that the activities of the port of Durban, after the closing of the Mediterranean, were increased tenfold. Some master-mind was responsible for the efficient carrying out of this work, for the piloting of huge vessels and the control of the terrific number of shipping movements in the harbour. There is someone there, I think, who deserves recognition; some master-brain, who should receive immediate recognition, for the efficient way in which he controlled the port’s activities.

I am sorry to disturb the jovial atmosphere of the House that has been created by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) and the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt).

Musgrave?

I beg the hon. member’s pardon. I want to deal with the question of promotions in the service. I was perturbed as I listened last week to some of the virulent attacks that were made on the personnel of the Railway Service. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that nobody queried the efficiency of these gentlemen, but individual attacks were made on them, virulent attacks, and that is where I feel rather concerned. One of the gentlemen attacked was Mr. Marshall Clark. Now, Mr. Speaker, who is Mr. Marshall Clark. He is 100 per cent. South African, and in spite of his name being Clark he is still a South African. His father was a railwayman and he left his mark on the South African Railways. Mr. Clark himself is a brilliant engineer; he has gained much experience in the North. He first of all became prominent during Mr. Pirow’s time. Mr. Pirow selected him and he was given important work. He was recommended by Mr. Watermeyer, the then General Manager of Railways. They discovered that he was a brilliant man and naturally he made rapid progress, like other gentlemen in the Railway Service. I am not going to mention the names of other people who made rapid progres because it cuts no ice, but this man made rapid progress because he was an efficient man. And in the Railway Service efficiency comes first and seniority second. The Minister of Railways said the other day that the barber shop system of next gentleman please, should be done away with, and that the question of efficiency should come first.

We object to undue influence.

Mr. Clark was given an important job on the Reef Railways; he made certain improvements on the Reef Railways and not every engineer can do that. He had to straighten out the lines and alter the levels while the Johannesburg traffic was in operation. He was an outstanding man. He showed operating ability.

Do you say that not every engineer can do that?

Yes, I say that.

Did the others get a chance to show what they could do?

He was chosen by Mr. Pirow and recommended by the then General Manager, Mr. Watermeyer. The point I want to make is that there is no discrimination in the Railways, and that there is no racialism in the Railways.

What!

If there were, you would have had protest meetings all over the country by railwaymen.

You don’t know anything about the Railways.

Proof of my contention can be found in the fact that the Railway constituencies are represented by members on this side of the House.

I have proved that that is not so.

There was a virulent attack made on Mr. Clark but a worse attack was made on Mr. Chittenden. I won’t say what I think of that attack in case Mr. Speaker pulls me up, but it certainly was a virulent attack. What I feel is this, that members opposite who attack Mr. Chittenden are speaking from a privileged position. I challenge those hon. members and the Leader of the Opposition too—I am sorry that the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) saw fit to make the attack he did—it will do no good to his already dwindling reputation. And he should leave these matters rather to some of the backbenchers on his side.

What are you?

Of course I am a backbencher, but I challenge those hon. members who made those virulent attacks on Mr. Chittenden to say to him outside this House what they said about him inside this House.

So what?

What is it that you object to?

I listened carefully to the speeches made by hon. members opposite, and although there are 14,000 members of our Railway staff up North, who have joined the forces.…

Better men than you are.

Not a single word of praise was spoken about those men.

That has nothing to do with the matter.

X know hon. members opposite do not like them because they do not represent them.

You are a flag wagger.

And not a word was said about the men here who are running our Railways. They are breaking records.…

Where were you when I spoke; I said it.

The hon. member who has just interrupted need not say anything; the Railways treated him better than he could ever have hoped for. Let him be quiet—let sleeping dogs lie. We would expect them to have said something about our Railways—to have spoken a word of praise on behalf of the men.

They are not your Railways, they belong to the country.

The hon. member is splitting hairs. Now this report of the General Manager’s was referred to. I want to say something about the report. It says here—on page 7—

What we object to is political considerations.

I believe every word that is said here. The report goes on—

And then later on the report says this—

Years ago, hon. members know perfectly well, that our railwaymen had to be imported. The same thing happened in the Police Service, and the Post Office service—we know that Dutch-speaking South Africans were not attracted to these services, and now hon. members come here and say: “Why are the Dutch-speaking South Africans not equal in numbers and position with the English?” A number of figures have been quoted, but those figures when taken out of their context are misleading. It was asked why is the English-speaking man in the Railway service in the majority? Why does the figure stand at 79 per cent. while the figure for the Afrikaans-speaking South African only stands at 21 per cent.?

Because of political influence.

Yes, that is what we can expect from the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). The position is this—it is misleading to take these figures out of their context. The true position is this, that the Afrikaans members of the Railway Administration have increased in the last three years from 14.5 per cent. to 20.49 per cent. whereas the English-speaking members of the service have decreased from 85.42 per cent. to 79.5 per cent. The Afrikaans-speaking figure is coming up and the English-speaking figure is going down. And that is due to the fact that in the past these people were imported from overseas. We find the same thing in other services simply because we could not find people in this country to do that work. And you find these facts reflected in this report. In the Marine service we find the same thing. The report says this—

Not a single Dutch-speaking South African among those 46 appointments.

Then why are you afraid to appoint a commission, if that is correct?

Here you have the beginnings of this same trouble again. The report deals with that. It says: “The position here too is changing, and within a few years it will no doubt be found that Afrikaans-speaking men presently employed in the lower grades of the Marine group—although few in number—will be represented on the senior officers’ establishment. Development in this direction will undoubtedly be accelerated as a result of the increasing flow of Afrikaans-speaking recruits to the Marine branch and the experience being gained by young South Africans in the Naval services at the present time.” I repeat. The reports says—

Well, here you have the beginnings of trouble again. In 25 years’ time if this House is divided as it is today, you will have the same outcry, and it will be asked why are so many men in the Marine service English-speaking. And then you go further and you come to the engineering side. In the engineering side the proportion of English-speaking to Afrikaans-speaking incumbents of the most senior posts is 86 to 14, while in the two lower groups the comparative relation is 84 to 16 and 83 to 17 respectively. But when you come to the major professional branch of the service—the sick fund—it is found that the division is much nearer equality, being 53 to 47 in respect of doctors, and 48 to 52 in the case of surgeons and specialists. There you have a different position. It is because the South African boys’ inclination is to take up medicine. The Afrikaans-speaking South African has been more attracted to the medical branches than to the other branches. And the report has this comment—

That is the whole point, and I feel that no case has been made out for the appointment of a commission. Now I want to say something about the Cape Northern System of Railways. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are various systems in the country and I think the Cape Northern system has been the stepchild of the Administration because so little development has taken place in the Cape Northern area. The Cape Northern area will still come into its own because I believe there is no area so heavily mineralised where you find such great deposits of minerals and base metals as there, and although we have not come into our own I believe that in the near future we shall. Today I have the same complaints as other members—our stations are antiquated, they fail to meet present day requirements, and the time has arrived when these things should be improved. The platforms on rainy days are in such a state that one can hardly stand on them for water. The offices are dark and unsuitable. The head office for the Northern System was built some 5 years ago but it has become inadequate. The old head office still being used also is quite out of date and badly ventilated, and I hope that when I talk about these things my words will not fall on deaf ears. The marshalling yard for this area at Beaconsfield is a good one, but there are no facilities for the men. Although ground is available near by and cheap to acquire, houses have hot been built and the transport facilities to take men from their houses and back are not available. I want to bring this to the Minister’s notice so that when the time comes, suitable houses can be built for these men. Recently the Railway Workshops Commission visited the Cape Northern area. It visited Kimberley and I hope that when the time comes, after this war, for reconstruction, and for planning, this area will get consideration, and far more consideration than it has had in the past. I say this on account of its importance and I say it also because between Cape Town and Mafeking, a distance of one thousand miles, there is not a single repair shop worthy of the name, and over a large and important stretch of country like that, when we are anticipating trade from the Belgian Congo and from other territories, there is ample room for up to date repair shops and Railway workshops. There is every facility for getting ground cheaply, water and electric light and power. There is a technical college, and all the required amenities and I hope that when the time comes to improve this system the Cape Northern area will receive the Minister’s serious consideration.

If everything which the hon. member who has just sat down put to this House is true, I would like to ask him what objection he has to a Commission of Investigation. A commission could then show the world outside that all the allegations made by this side of the House are unfounded and that my hon. friends on the other side are perfectly correct. He is attempting to bring us on this side of the House under suspicion in the eyes of the Railway workers. He wants to create the impression that no praise and appreciation was expressed by this side for the services which have been rendered by the Railway officials. I want to deny that emphatically. This side spoke with the highest respect and appreciation of the services of those people. But the unfairness of the whole situation is this. The Afrikaans-speaking section of the staff are not accorded their due rights, and we want justice to be done in this country. I think the time has arrived when the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people has the right to demand what is its due. Why should they be treated unjustly while the English-speaking section receives all the benefits? We have not the slightest objection to an officer, whether he be English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking, receiving promotion according to merit. For that reason we ask for this commission of investigation to prove who is right and who is wrong. If hon. members on the other side are so certain that their case is fundamentally sound, why are they afraid to have a commission of investigation? No, there is a great measure of injustice. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) described the great fuss which is made of a person who came to this country from oversea. He travels in a special coach, but the people of the Union of South Africa have to stand outside in long queues like coloured people to reserve accommodation. People who are sent to the coast by the doctor, have to struggle for days and queue up before they can get accommodation. But these big lords from overseas can travel in special coaches. Even I as a member of Parliament must reserve accommodation well in advance, and then I am pushed in anywhere. But these big lords travel about, and we do not know what they are really doing. It is becoming high time for the people of South Africa to protest against that type of thing. There are signs that great dissatisfaction is being caused by this injustice which is done to the people of the Union of South Africa. We already have this sign that the mineworkers are bitterly dissatisfied. I do not think the matter is going to remain where it is, and then it will be the Government which will be responsible. I want to warn the Minister of Railways that the second biggest disaster which is going to hit the Union of South Africa, will be when those people who are today rendering national services to the people of South Africa, indicate their dissatisfaction. The people who have to earn their bread and butter on the railways receive a meagre wage. The other day I travelled by train and I asked the chief steward what their monthly takings were in such dining saloons. His reply was approximately £1,200. I then asked him what those young men receive who work from morning till night, and it was a great surprise to me and the shock of my life when I was told that they receive from £7 10s. to £9 per month. They have to live on the alms which they receive from the travelling public. Is it not a disgrace that this big organisation which shows such big profits, should make slaves of these Europeans who have to work for such a meagre wage? The time has arrived for this great organisation to see that these people are better remunerated. I have always said that I have the highest regard and respect for the Minister of Railways, and I hope and trust that he will personally give his attention to this matter and that he will see to it that those people to whom an injustice is being done receive their due rights. We spoke of the great expenditure which is being incurred and the manner in which these people are being treated. At the beginning of this Session I saw the Minister personally in regard to certain matters affecting my constituency. Before the commencement of this Session I travelled through my constituency to ask my constituents what I should try to do for them. I told them that the Government has millions of pounds at its disposal, and that it was a Government which did not care how many millions per month it spent on the war. But the result of that is that we have to come along as beggars to ask for charity out of those millions which are being wasted. The farmers told me that they would like a direct train service between Marquard and Johannesburg. At the moment they have to load their cattle at Petrus Steyn. It then goes over Arlington and Gunhill. If there were a direct train service it would take half the time which is taken now. The Minister caused investigations to be made. I do not know who conducted the investigation, but it is now said that it will mean that the cattle would have to remain on the train twenty-four hours longer. That is childish. It is a very short distance. If the cattle are loaded at Marquard in the evening, they reach Johannesburg the following day. Is that forty-eight hours, or is it shorter? If the department does not want to meet these people, there will simply be more and unnecessary work for the people at Arlington and Gunhill. At the moment the position is that the trains have to be shunted there. The cattle are badly bruised and shaken, with the result that inferior meat reaches the market. If we get a direct line, there will be less shunting and less bruising, and the cattle will arrive on the market in a better condition. An hon. member indicated here the other day that the workshops of the railways are at present being used to manufacture toys. I want to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister in all seriousness. When we order trucks for cattle, we have to wait until we can get an empty truck. Recently I had to wait fourteen days for a truck for pigs. I now understand from the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) that the workshops are being used to manufacture toys. I think that an organisation like the railways should not waste its time making toys. We need these services, and it is a great injustice to the public to do this sort of thing. Why should the time of the Railways be wasted in making toys? In addition to the money which is wasted, it means that the Railway officials have to give their services to the State in the most difficult circumstances, and if those people begin to indicate their dissatisfaction, no one in the country could blame them. They have every right to be dissatisfied with the manner in which they are being treated. The railway line from Arlington to Wolwehoek has been in existence for years. The other day I arrived at Heilbron and it then came to my notice that the men who travelled from Arlington to Heilbron have to wait there until they can again return to Arlington. They work practically day and night and ought to have proper rest, and the room in which they rest is a disgrace to the Administration. It is not fit for a Hottentot to sleep in, and it is scandalous to see under what conditions these men have to work. The bricks have been transported and have been there for a long time. Perhaps some of them have by this time become worthless, but as yet no proper rest room has been built. I brought this matter to the Minister’s attention. He promised to look into it again and to let me know the result of his investigations. We have this position that men who work on the Railways have to live in galvanised iron pondokke. It is a disgrace to a modern State such as the Union of South Africa and to an organisation such as the Railways which has an income of millions of pounds. Such a great organisation must not leave its workers in such misery and poverty. I want to express the hope that the Minister will give his attention to this matter and that he will take steps to see that these conditions are improved. Proper houses ought to be erected for these people. At Heilbron it is disgraceful to see the little building in which the goods office is housed. It is a little cement building which is smaller than the pigsty on my farm, and in that office two men and a girl have to work. I do think that in this connection the Government should take care of those people who are rendering service to the country. We must not only look after the big lords who receive thousands of pounds. We on this side fight for those people who render service and who deserve consideration, and who are poorly treated today. The hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Humphreys) made the remark that there were 14,000 Railway Officials in the North, and he added that we on this side have spoken nothing but ill of those people. That is absolutely untrue. I have the greatest respect for those men who have the courage of their convictions and who proceeded to fight for their convictions. There are, however, many men amongst them who did not join up because of their convictions. I want to say that when those soldiers who enlisted return, I shall be extremely willing to do whatever I can for them. Then I want to come to another small matter. Formerly it was the custom of the Administration to make fire-breaks along the line. I believe that the position is now completely different. The owner of the land must make the fire-breaks himself. If the owner fails to do so, the Administration undertakes the work at something like £4 per mile. That was said to me at the meeting, and I was also asked to request the Minister to take steps to bring about a change in order to meet the farmers, and to introduce the old system again whereby the men who work on the line, undertake that work. There may be farmers who would be prepared to plough the furrows, as long as the Administration undertakes to make the fire-breaks. I think it is most unfair to expect this, because there are farms through which miles and miles of railway line runs. Then the farmers are still expected to make those fire-breaks. I think that this is a part which the Administration ought to do. I have referred to the inconvenience which the people have to suffer and the conveniences extended to certain other people who come to this country from overseas. Then I just want to ask the hon. Minister to cancel all these regulations and the permit system which is now in vogue. One of the farmers at Winburg went to the Transvaal shortly before the terrible floods. He then wanted to return to Theunissen and transport his car per truck. He had the greatest difficulty before he could eventually get a permit to have his car transported. He wanted to pay for it; he did not want it free of charge. But it seems to me that the time will come when one will have to have a coupon or permit to kiss one’s wife.…

You mean if you want to kiss another man’s wife.

And we want to ask the hon. Minister to see to it that the people do not unnecessarily bear those burdens.

Before I come to the Wanderers grounds, I just want to say this to the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen). He is one of the hon. members in this House who would not deliberately misrepresent what a member said, but unfortunately he has been in this House for the last ten years without having the slightest idea in regard to many things which have taken place here. He made an attack on the Labour Party because, so he alleged, the Labour Party has never pleaded for the underdog in the Railways. That criticism on the part of my hon. friend is devoid of all truth, and I just want to refer him to what has taken place in this House every year. I want to refer him to the motions which have been moved by the Labour Party, in which we pointed on each occasion to the lower paid section of the Railway Department, and we are still doing so daily, so that I cannot say any more than that my hon. friend’s criticism is absolutely unfounded.

To which motion are you referring?

The motions with reference to the lower paid officials in the Railway service. Not a single Session has passed during which I or my colleagues have not severely criticised the low wages which are being paid to many Railway officials.

What does “The Guardian” say?

I am now dealing with the hon. member’s opinion, and not with what. “The Guardian” says. Not a single Session has passed in this House since I have been a member where we have not emphasised with all the power at our command, the necessity of placing the lower paid section of the Railway workers on a higher standard. The motions which we move on the estimates every year amount to that.

Will you recognise their organisation?

My hon. friend’s attack was directed against the Labour Party. Let me tell the hon. member this, whether one recognises them or not, 10s. per day without recognition will mean more to them than 5s. per day with recognition. I do not want to say anything else on that point. The Railways are in a peculiar position in South Africa, and its position has become even more peculiar as a result of the war. This is a Department which has been placed in the position of being able to milk the Department of Defence—metaphorically speaking, of course. The Department of Railways is a Department which as such makes profit upon profit out of the war situation, and except for the people in the Railway service who have joined the army, the Railway Department contributes nothing towards the war effort. What it does do, in the first instance, is to milk the Department of Defence on an enormous scale; and I think that if the Minister will reply to the complaint, which was made here this morning by one of the hon. members on my right, he will have to admit that the Railways reduced their tariffs not out of love for the Department of Defence, but in order to milk the Department of Defence. Today they are doing the same thing as far as the farmers are concerned. The tariffs on the Railways are of such a nature today that sometimes it does not pay one to convey a product, which lies and rots in one part of the country in the form of over-production, to another part of the country, where there is so-called starvation. Now we hear the complaint that there is a shortage of trucks on the Railways. If that is true, I want to ask the hon. Minister why the fruit and vegetable train which leaves Matapan station—to give only one example—leaves Matapan station on Wednesday evening, and sometimes takes a full week before it delivers vegetables to all the stations on the Witwatersrand. It has happened that it takes a full week for those vegetables or fruit to reach the Johannesburg station. Then the hon. Minister, or his management, tells the country that there was a shortage of trucks. Here it takes a week for a truck to go from Matapan station to the Johannesburg stations. But we hear that there is a shortage of trucks. We find, however, that a truck which is loaded at Matapan station near Nelspruit, stands over for a few days at various places, with the result that a whole week passes before that truck reaches its destination. Where are these trucks detained? Then the hon. Minister tells us that there is a shortage of trucks. This fact which I have just mentioned disproves that propaganda on the part of the Minister that there is a shortage of trucks. That is not the trouble. No, there is some radical fault with his management, because if a truck leaves Matapan station on Wednesday evening and takes a week to arrive in Johannesburg, it runs counter to all his arguments. He is not short of trucks. No, what the hon. Minister lacks is an efficient system of management. If the Minister adopts a slightly more practical and less highhanded attitude as far as the Railways are concerned, he will be in a better position to meet the traffic requirements for which his department is responsible. If we have to judge the Railways today by the Minister’s present policy, it is enough to put the public off. Now I want to say a few words in regard to the stingy policy of the Railways. I want to say a few words in connection with the members of the public who use the Railways as a means of transport from one centre to another, and who are forced to make use of the Railways. I want to tell the hon. Minister that he is damaging the reputation of the Railways through his policy. He is leaving the Government in the lurch; he is following a policy which will result in the public refusing to make use of the Railways after the war when the traffic position returns to normal, because the present situation, to say the least of it, is giving the South African Railways such a bad name that after the war the public will definitely refuse to avail themselves of Railway facilities; they will use their own cars when it is no longer necessary for them to use the Railways. Is it not remarkable that one finds on the main lines that every member of the public has to be satisfied with a small piece of material which at one time was a towel. Is there any reason for that? When one travels by train, ons gets a small piece of what used to be a towel. Then one comes to the big cities and notices that the Minister can buy all the towels which he requires for the travelling public, who have to pay to the uttermost. He is making profits; he is making profits out of the other departments. He is milking the whole country, but he is too stingy to give the travelling public those elementary comforts which they ought to have. The members of the public have to be satisfied with a small portion of what used to be a towel, while in Cape Town today the position is that one can buy all the towels one wants in almost every shop. At this stage I want to say that the Minister is basing his policy on the loyalty of his Railway workers. He is trading on it; he is making use of the loyalty of his Railway workers. The Minister is stretching the loyalty of these people very far. The public of South Africa is more than prepared to endure what has to be endured during the war, but the public is beginning to get annoyed because of the unnecessary burdens which the Minister is placing on them through this policy. It is our duty to speak on behalf of the members of the public who have been placed in this position. Take another example. Take the question of the reservation of seats on the trains—and it is not necessary to write to the Minister to draw his attention to it, because one can write in connection with the greatest irregularities, and the reply simply is that it is a misunderstanding, that it is not true. That is the reply one gets when one proves chapter and verse, that irregularities were committed. The reply which one gets amounts to this, that one is telling an untruth; and if the Minister’s department is not prepared to follow the traditional custom of bringing a complaint to the notice of his management and to have it settled in that way, then it is necessary to thrash out this question on the floor of the House. He does not accept the responsibility for all those conditions which create dissatisfaction in his department. He simply gets up and says: “I, Sturrock, am not responsible.” He allows the blame to be put on to members of Parliament, and then he remains completely silent and does not say a single word. He allows this propaganda to continue in the newspapers month after month, and he has not the courage to get up and say that it is his management which is responsible. And I think the time has now arrived for us to say; “Up to this point the Minister has strained the loyalty of the people, but there is an end to everything, and there must be an end to this too.” Only recently when it was said that the time had arrived when eight or ten people might have to be put into a compartment on long journeys, various articles appeared in the Press to this effect, that the members of Parliament are doing this, but that they themselves are taking care that they have comfortable long-distance journeys; and the Minister knows that not a single member of Parliament has any say in this matter. As far as Railway matters are concerned, members of Parliament are never informed in this House. One has to get one’s information from the newspapers. The members of the public also get their information from the newspapers, and then they complain to us, and if we say that we know nothing about it, they reply that we do these things. And the Minister is shielding behind those newspapers. I say that the Minister is leaving the Cabinet in the lurch. The Minister allows himself to be consoled by those flattering grandiloquent stories which appear about him in the Press from time to time. But I can tell the hon. Minister that there is a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction in the country. The public is not as unreasonable as we are told. Today we see a statement by the Government in connection with a shortage of transport facilities, but in practice we find just the opposite, as I proved a moment ago in connection with the conveyance of vegetables and fruit. The Minister pursues this policy, and I say the time has arrived for this House to let the Minister understand clearly that there is tremendous room for improvement, and that he must not make use of the fact that the public must necessarily avail themselves of the Railways. On the contrary he ought to say that since the public is now compelled to travel by train, we are going to give them the best possible comforts. Now I come to the question of the reservation of seats. I have seen peoplestand in queues at the big stations from 8 o’clock in the morning in order to reserve seats, and when one passes the station late that same afternoon one finds that the queue is just as long. But when the people want to know why they should be compelled to stand in queues in order to reserve their seats, why they cannot simply write and say that they want to travel from Johannesburg to the Cape or from Bloemfontein to Durban, and that they want to travel as soon as possible, that request is refused. That procedure is rejected, and the people have to stand in queues whether or not they have the time to do so. Now I want to put the other ridiculous aspect of the Minister’s policy. All the seat reservations on the Rand have to go through Johannesburg. The people cannot reserve their seats at the neighbouring stations. They have to go to. Johannesburg. They have to go by train as far as Johannesburg, stand there in a queue until the afternoon, and then discover that there is no place for them, and then they may have to travel back 30 or 40 miles and again travel 30 or 40 miles the next day to Johannesburg, and once again discover in the afternoon that there is no place, and then again travel back. And then the Minister tells us that we should not use the trains so frequently. He tells us that his department is doing its very best. Assuming that a person wants to reserve his seat from Magaliesberg, he has to travel the whole of that distance instead of being allowed to reserve his seat by means of a letter. No, that is not permitted. The people must necessarily stand in a queue and then we are told that his department meets the public in such a wonderful way. We have this policy in the Railways today, that the one person says this, and the other does something else. The Railways say one thing but the Minister says just the opposite, and it is for that reason that I say that the present Minister of Railways is pursuing a policy which has brought the loyalty of the inhabitants of South Africa to such a point that their courage must break down if the Minister persists with his policy. Now we come back to the policy of the Railways. Nearly every employer in the country has admitted the fact that costs of living have risen. Nearly every employer in the country who has lowly paid workers has made it his business to give those workers an opportunity of making a better living. But the Railways consistently adhere to one fixed policy, and that is to make profits only. It is typical of the Minister to say: “Where must the money come from?” And if the Railways make such enormous profits out of other departments, out of the travelling public, out of the workers, out of the farmers—if they make these profits out of people—and hon. members must remember that the primary object of the Railways was not to make profit, but it was laid down that the Railways shall be used, in the first instance, for the development of agriculture in South Africa, and today the Railways are not answering that purpose—if they make all those profits, one would expect them to take care of the Railway workers. It does not answer that purpose either. If a good case has not yet been made out for the Railway workers, I do not know how big the Minister wants his profits to be before he admits the fact that these people can no longer live on such low wages. Every now and then we read of cases of theft in the Railways, and I think that we are justified in saying that those thefts which took place on the Railways can perhaps be ascribed to the fact that the wages of these people are so low that they are sometimes compelled to commit theft, because we know that hunger is a very strong motive, and I shall not be surprised to find that the majority of these thefts are committed by people who are in very needy circumstances. We want to make this plea to the Minister with all the power at our command. The Cabinet and the Government have already expressed the opinion that those lowly-paid people should be paid more. Here his Department is responsible for a large number of lowly-paid people. He has the money. He is in a wonderful position to do so; and we urge that it should be done. I now want to come back to a complaint which is frequently made in this House, and that is in connection with promotions. I have seen a few letters dealing with promotions. I must tell the Minister that it seems to me that the regulations and laws are invoked by them only when it suits them; that those regulations and those laws are ignored as often as it suits certain highly placed officials in the Railway Department. I do not like mentioning the names of people on the floor of this House, but I have seen correspondence from the Department of Railways in connection with promotions, and the excuse which is sometimes given does not hold water at all. When I read the letters of the previous year and compare them with what the Department says today in regard to the same matter, I think that I am fully entitled to say that those regulations and laws are only applied when it suits the Railway Department. If the Minister wants satisfaction in the Railway Service, he must faithfully observe the traditions and regulations which exist in connection with promotions; they must not overlook the claims of people who are entitled to promotion, while other men are brought up from below and promoted. When one draws their attention to the matter, an excuse is always found, and this eventually gives rise to a feeling of injustice in the Railway Service; and if there is one department which cannot afford to have dissatisfaction amongst the staff, it is the South African Railways. And is there satisfaction?

No.

Does the hon. Minister want to tell me that there is satisfaction in the Railway Service? On the contrary, never has the Service been so pregnant with a feeling of dissatisfaction as it is today, and I speak here as a man who in former years was the organiser of a trade union. And let every employer understand this—the majority of employers do realise it today—the majority of employers will tell you that a dissatisfied worker is a dangerous worker. Let the Minister tell us how many derailments have taken place recently. I know what his reply will be. He will again say that it is not in the public interest to disclose that information. But I want to tell the Minister that if he gives greater satisfaction to his workers on the Railways, he will have less derailments. I want to tell the Minister that if he sees that right and justice is done to the Railway workers, he will have less derailments. I now want to come back to the reply of the Minister of Railways in connection with Wanderers. I now have another opportunity of dealing with that question which the Minister evaded. I think this is one of the first rights of this House, the birthright of this House, namely, that when a department proposes to incur great potential expenditure, this House should know something about it, that this House should have the right to know what the Minister has in mind. Here the Minister gives the reply which I quoted this morning. I asked him—

The Minister says that he does not want to disclose this information. The Minister does not want to tell this House what the estimated cost which he has in mind will be. But the House is now expected to sit here until it adjourns, and next year we shall come here with a big, cooked proposition and expect the House to approve of it. For months and months the Minister set in motion an agitation on the Witwatersrand that, even though the world were to come to an end, he must have Wanderers. In spite of tremendous opposition the Minister decided that that must be so. I should have thought that since there was such an agitation in the country in regard to those grounds, and since there was so much propaganda against it, the hon. Minister would at least attempt to justify his case before this House. I would, in the first place have expected the Minister’s case to be justified by the Investigation Commission. But does one find it there? No, there are only two people who desire this, namely, the Minister and his manager. I link that with the fact that the Investigation Committee suggested that certain railway lines should be built in South Africa, in order to cope with the surprising increase in traffic from Pretoria through the Witwatersrand and Vereeniging and to other places. But the Minister personally told a deputation that he was not at all satisfied with this type of suggestion to reduce the bottleneck traffic in Johannesburg. On the contrary, he wants it there. Without being an engineer, I think that anyone with commonsense will say that where lines run parallel they should be separated as far as possible, so that if there is a derailment or excessive traffic on one line, one can use the other lines. But the Minister wants all the lines laid there, he does not even want to consider the other lines which were suggested. But he wants to build a new station at Johannesburg. I do not want to try to make the Minister appear ridiculous, but how can he suggest a new station for Johannesburg at this stage, while there is a great need throughout the Union for other important stations for which the people have waited for years and years, at centres which have totally inadequate buildings. The brand new station which we have at Johannesburg cost an enormous amount of money.

It was built wrongly.

Not only was the station built incorrectly, but throughout the whole country, throughout the length and breadth of the Union, one finds that type of policy carried out. A line is shifted a 100 yards to the right at great expense, and after it has been there for three or four years it is again shifted, slightly to the left of the original line. It may suit the Minister; it may suit a group of businessmen if so much business is concentrated in Johannesburg, but it certainly does not suit South Africa, which has to bear the taxes, nor does it suit all the other centres which are in great need of new stations, and which have not had a new station for the past twenty or thirty years. But the Minister wants a new station. Now I ask this House where the agitation for a new station originated? Can any hon. member get up and say that the public of Johannesburg has at any time asked for a new railway station? There is not a single member who can say that the public of Johannesburg, as such, insisted on a new station. I know that the Minister wants it. He wants it and his manager wants it. At the insistence of the Minister and his management, I suppose we are going to get a new station at Johannesburg. It passes my comprehension. Will the Minister tell the House who asked for a new station, and why a centre which got a new station only recently should again have a new station, while other centres lack proper facilities. It is time for the House and the Minister to understand that we have reached the point where Parliament is no longer prepared simply to sit here and to swallow everything which the Minister puts before us. The Minister may regard himself as a very capable dictator. I would also be in favour of a dictatorship, but then I must be the dictator, and there is not a single hon. member in this House who will agree with him. And the Minister and his manager are the last two people whom I should like to have as dictators, because their careers, their stingy policy, their defective traffic management, the preference which they give to one centre above the other, the manner in which they try to justify it—forces me to say that they are the most dangerous figures when it comes to giving them the powers which they want. The time has arrived for Parliament to raise its voice and no longer to tolerate the favouring of one centre above another. Johannesburg is a big business centre, but the whole population of South Africa cannot be sacrificed for the sake of a few big businessmen in Johannesburg. There are other parts in South Africa whose interests are as important as the interests of Johannesburg, and which keenly desire an expansion of railway facilities. I wonder if hon. members have made any effort to calculate the amount of expenditure which the Minister is going to incur in connection with this new station. Compare this with the construction of a railway line of 50 or 60 miles, which is so necessary in many parts of the country. It is not right that the Minister should go on in this way, and what I object to most strongly is the fact that the Minister has taken it upon himself to undertake these enormously big plans without seeking the approval or consultation of this House, and without taking the House into his confidence. He decides everything on his own initiative, not on the advice of this House, or of the Railway Board or of the Investigation Committee, but he decides on his own initiative, according to his own ideas. He may be a capable engineer, and he may try to get away with that, but there are other capable engineers whose views clash with the policy which the Minister of Railways has laid down. I think we must object to it. Before the Minister again does these things and saddles the people of South Africa with such colossal expenditure running into millions of pounds, the approval of this House must be asked, and he must take the House into his confidence and ascertain what the House has to say in regard to his proposals.

At the outset I would like to congratulate the Minister for the momentous step which he has taken in the formation of the appointment of this Ministry of Transport, a step to co-ordinate the transport undertakings in this country. It is a step which is a dynamic break from tradition, and I think, Mr. Speaker, that if we recognise transport as being the hallmark of civilisation we will realise the importance of that step, and it is in regard to that fact that I should like to say a few words this afternoon, firstly, on the need for administrative reform as the background against which the future transport undertakings of this country should be built; and secondly, the need for the closest co-operation possible between the administration on the one hand and the local authorities on the other. I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the ramifications of the various spheres of transport. I do, however, feel that at the outset this question of transport in this country is really too big a subject to be dealt with by any one single individual, namely, the general manager. I believe that for the efficient and expeditious development of transport services there must, from the very outset, be complete unification of control, but at the same time a measure of decentralisation in regard to the specialist branches. This fundamental principle if given effect to in regard to the four branches of transport, that is rail, road, sea and air, through the medium of either secretaries or general managers or undersecretaries—whatever term you would like to use—should lay down that these posts should be directly responsible to the Minister, and their work could be co-ordinated through a central transportation council. I believe that through such a council we will see the co-ordination of the four services, and through it, this co-ordination would be seen at its best; it would possess elasticity, but at the same time there would still be unification of control. It is not my intention to deal with the scope or the jurisdiction of these future appointments, or of the departments, except to make these few observations. As I said just now, I am convinced that if we are, for example, to have a plan for the future development of our harbours, and if we are to inaugurate proper control of shipping services, including deep sea ships to import into the country for example sleepers from Australia, and not forgetting petrol tankers and coastal ships, if we are to develop a proper plan for shipping control and navigation and aids to navigation and give attention to the question of staff and the training of officials for these various branches of the maritime service—if, as I believe, the Department of Transport must shortly take over the question of hydrographical surveys and also the question of meteorological stations, because I for one cannot visualise any important transport undertaking being developed in this country without these meteorological stations and hydrographical survey ships being an integral part of the transport system of this country—I feel that if all these various services I have indicated are to develop to full maturity, a separate department under e secretary of maritime services is essential, and I think it can only develop to such maturity under such a secretary and at the same time remain an integral part of the Ministry of Transport. It will be appreciated too that there is need for a sound administrative background to air transport which will, I believe, become one of the most important features of our transport undertakings. If a corner stone is to be laid for future plans, it must be carefully laid now. I believe that in the laying of the foundation stone for such a service deep thought must be given, and in consideration of this problem, we must not lose sight of the fact that we must retain strict sovereignty over our own territory. Whilst I appreciate the necessity for an international link with various parts of the world, I do not wish to apologise for taking a very strict South African outlook. Naturally, I do not want to see any interference from outside with our transport undertakings in this country. I understand that even at the moment Imperial Airways are running a daily service between Durban and Vaaldam. I sincerely hope the Minister will not accept that as being a precedent on which Imperial Airways may develop their transport in this country. I regret as a matter of fact, that South Africa is unable to develop her services at the moment, owing obviously to lack of machines. But I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that it is interesting to note that of all the dominions South Africa is the only one which in the interests of the war effort has sacrificed its civil air service. I hope that when the time does arrive and when the Minister does have machines available he will lose no time in reintroducing this service. Furthermore, we know from what we have read in the Press of the developments that have taken place, particularly as the result of the war, that international agreements and regulations will have to be formulated from time to time; these agreements and regulations will have to be considered seriously by the department. There is no doubt that international policy and national rules will become so vast and complex that even such problems as those I have indicated—and there are others—would warrant the appointment of a Secretary for Air. I believe, too, that the Government will in due course have to take over all civil aerodromes, and in that respect I believe that the Secretary for Air will not only be responsible for policy but that he will be responsible for construction and maintenance of all those aerodromes, not forgetting the problem of the training of the staff and officials for this particular branch of the transport service. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this House will readily recognise that the functions of such a highly specialised branch as air transport, must be controlled and developed with meticulous care and foresight and the corner stones for such development should be laid carefully now. I think from these few observation it is clear that the magnitude of the transport task now and in the future is such that it cannot be adequately handled by any one single individual. It is in this respect that I believe profound thought must be given to the administrative background whereby a measure of autonomy can be introduced into each specialised branch of the service co-ordinated through a Central Transportation Council under the guidance of the Minister. Now I want to say a few words in connection with the development of future transport undertakings in this country in the post-war period, firstly, in regard to railways or other transport undertakings carried out by the administration, and secondly in relation to the local authorities throughout the Union. I have not the slighest doubt that there is nobody in this country who appreciates more, than the present Minister himself, the vast development that will take place in this country in the sphere of transport. That being so, I want not only to ask but to appeal to the Minister that in view of the tremendous problems which will be facing him shortly, if these problems are to be solved, then the Minister must now appoint a department of reconstruction. I believe that with the appointment of a department of reconstruction we would be sure that such department would be responsible for the policy associated with all major reconstruction works, and it would see that these major reconstruction works in transport undertakings would dovetail into the major reconstruction works that are being undertaken by provincial administration and local authorities. Apart from the national approach to this problem, I also want to mention my experiences in so far as Durban is concerned with an eye to the necessity for co-operation between the Government, through the reconstruction department on the one hand and the local authorities on the other. Before dealing with the necessity for such co-ordination I would like to remind the Minister of a few incontrovertible facts in regard to Durban and Natal. I ask the Minister not to forget Natal’s importance in the sphere of transport. This can be measured by the fact that about a third of the revenue accruing to the Railways and Harbours in this country is derived from earnings of the Natal system. That, of course, is mainly due to the heavy traffic to and from the Port of Durban and the hinterland. I would also like to remind the Minister, and it has been shown very clearly in the last few years, that the Port of Durban has undertaken more traffic than all the rest of the Union harbours put together. Because of these true facts alone I contend that Durban by virtue of its importance, must command deep and careful consideration in regard to transport undertakings of the Minister’s department especially from the point of view of co-operating with the municipality when it comes to embarking on major plans. The Minister himself, when he visited Durban last August, stated that unless the city quickly made up its mind on long range plans of development it would find that it would be too late, as the Railways and Harbours Administration was embarking on an ambitious programme of major undertakings, which would probably dictate the future of Durban for 50 years or more. That statement of the Minister of Transport was accented as a challenge by the people of Durban, and I would like to point out that the City Council, on the 12th April, 1943, had already appointed a committee to draw up a programme of post-war development. Now this committee on the 6th May, 1943, requested—and rightly so—the town clerk to communicate with the system manager in Durban and to intimate to him that it was the intention of the council to make a long term survey of post-war problems. This was done and the town clerk enquired whether the Railway Administration would be good enough to co-operate with the council, and advise on broad lines what schemes it contemplated, or were being planned as regards rail, harbour and aerodrome developments, so that there could be complete collaboration and co-ordination between the Government on the one hand and the City Council on the other. Now, despite the challenge of the Minister of Transport., coming as it did four months after the appointment of the committee I referred to, and despite the fact that the committee requested the Transport Departments to co-operate with them, I find that to this day—and, Mr. Speaker, seven or eight months have elapsed since then—the City Council has received no reply other than that the matter has been referred to headquarters at Pretoria. I cannot help but feel that if a department of reconstruction had been formed in the transport organisation, things would not have reached that stage, and I think it is a pity that there is this lack of co-operation by the Railway Administration, wittingly or unwittingly. By virtue of this fact Durban has been unable to draw up plans for the development of areas in close proximity to the bayhead. From my ringside seat I noticed that the council took up this challenge, but the only reaction, as I see it, on the part of the Minister, is that he has sent down two or three seconds to Durban to expropriate the property already referred to by the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) without any regard to the corporation’s immense capital expenditure in regard to bayhead road development. I think one of the most important questions we will have to tackle is in regard to housing. In this respect the municipality have laid down a programme of post-war reconstruction involving £41,000,000, of which £22,769,700 has been earmarked for housing. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, while these various schemes have generally been agreed to in principle, it is obvious in order to carry them into effect important railway extensions will be required to serve these new suburbs. I think that the Minister will agree that without cheap, speedy and efficient rail services, it will be impossible to bring some of these schemes to fruition. I would remind the Minister that the Government’s national housing programme to eliminate slums is in a great measure dependent on the work undertaken by local authorities. I gathered from the Minister’s reply to a question in this House just a few days ago, that the Administration is not prepared to embark upon the construction of new lines unless they ate economic propositions. I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that if the Minister feels as he does on this particular point., he does not include suburban lines. I hope that he does not hold the view that this is perhaps a responsibility that should fall on the local authorities. I think that surely it is recognised today in regard to bus services in local urban areas, that they have now reached saturation point, and that they cannot compare either from a safety factor point of view or from an economic point of view, or from the point of view of speed with fast electrical suburban trains marshalled as they are on lines which do not come into conflict with each other. In this respect I do put it to the Minister a tremendous responsibility devolves on his shoulders to see, in connection with this national housing problem, especially in view of the fact that quick suburban traffic is required, to assist the local authorities in implementing their housing schemes. The Minister will appreciate that in supplying this transport service he will be assisting in implementing housing schemes by providing this essential service. That, Mr. Speaker, is a primary consideration that will face the under-secretary who would be responsible for such undertakings. I would like to say a few words on the various departmental committees that have been appointed during the last twelve or fourteen years. Firstly, there has been a committee appointed on the shipping industry. Another has been appointed to consider the institution of training in establishments for personnel for maritime services; and thirdly a committee was appointed to consider the inter-changeability of staffs between these two services. If we are to achieve harmony with the trend which has become manifest by the appointment of a Minister of Transport, I consider that the time has arrived when a committee or a commission should be appointed firstly to ratify and co-ordinate the findings of those various committees which I have already referred to, and which I believe have already submitted their reports; and secondly, such a commission should also acquire and collate evidence in regard to (1) the development of nationally-owned maritime shipping for the Union of South Africa; (2) the development of South African harbours; (3) the co-ordination and development of such harbours in conjunction with the establishment of a marine air force or in conjunction with civil aerodromes; (4) improvements in aid to navigation, and (5) the establishment and maintenance of hydrographical and meteorological stations. As I said, originally, if the transport undertakings in this country are going to be developed in the air or at sea, it is imperative that hydrographical surveys and meteorological stations are given an integral part in the future development of our transport undertakings in this country. Now another point I wish to deal with is in regard to the appointment of a Nautical Adviser to the establishment of the South African Railways and Harbours. This appointment was made presumably in order that expert nautical advice could be readily available at headquarters. The necessity for this appointment appears to be justified by the fact that the previous incumbent was lately granted an improved grading in his position. Now, it is proposed to amalgamate the appointment of Nautical Adviser with that of the Port Captain of Durban. I consider that this is definitely a retrograde step coming as it does at a time of greatly increased shipping, the introduction of nautical training schemes, development of harbours, and increased general harbour working in conjunction with transport. It is a proposal which I think is difficult to justify—as a matter of fact the appointment has already been made. I believe that it would have been the natural corollary to assume that the vast duties of the Nautical Adviser would have been expanded in order that the Administration might receive expert advice for the proposed future developments rather than that the position should be merged into a position which is so important and which I think the House will agree demands the presence of the Port Captain in Durban at all times. In other words, if the position of Port Captain at Durban and Nautical Adviser are performed by the same official, then Durban, the biggest port in the Union, will be left without a Port Captain when his presence is required elsewhere. This will mean that the Senior Assistant Port Captain will be called upon to assume the position of Port Captain while he is away. But it must be borne in mind that the Senior Assistant Port Captain is also an examiner for the masters’ and mates’ certificates of competency which takes him away to Cape Town. It could therefore happen that three officials could act as Port Captain within as many days. I feel the Minister on reconsideration will find it hard to justify the recent change, and I feel that the position merits the appointment of a Nautical Adviser as an integral part of the General Manager’s office. One last point, and that is the question of Durban’s new railway station. I think the Minister has made it perfectly clear that as soon as all the obstacles are out of the way a new railway station will be built at Durban. Well, it may not be as simple as it appears. There are difficulties in regard to railway workshops, and other difficulties. But I want to ask how it is that the question of drawing up plans by an architect for the railway station has been given to one architect in Durban. That is my information. I understood that when this question of the building of a new station was first mooted the architects of Durban approached the Railway Administration with a view to the plans being put out to competition. This the Minister refused as he indicated it was a matter which was going to be handled by his own Department. Then it was suggested that perhaps in the interest of the building of that station an architect should be nominated by the Durban architects to hold a watching brief and consult with the Administration. This I believe the Minister accepted. But strange though it may seem, this one person at a later date was given the complete plans to draw up. If that is true. I regret that that action has been taken, because I believe that in times such as these, such a vast undertaking as the Durban railway station, the plans at least, should have been put out to competition among the various architects in Durban or perhaps throughout the Union. In conclusion I should like the Minister, if he is in a position to do so, firstly to give this House and the country some idea what administrative reforms he intends putting into operation in order that the future transport undertakings of this country can develop to full maturity, secondly in regard to the vast problem of reconstruction work, and the necessity for the Railway Administration co-operating with local authorities, and whether he is prepared to consider the question of setting up a Department of Reconstruction. Thirdly, I would like him to indicate to the House whether he can justify, in view of the modern trend of development, the position of Nautical Adviser being held toy one person who is at the same time Port Captain of Durban. Fourthly, I would like the Minister to tell the country whether this Government, in view of anticipated air developments of the future, is going to hold sovereignty over its own territory.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys) is not in his place, as I should like to have directed a few words to him. I shall leave that over for a bit, and perhaps the hon. member will turn up in the meantime. I should like to congratulate the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, on the manner in which he expressed himself. He revealed a South African outlook on affairs, and I want to say that if the English-speaking Afrikaners cultivate a South African outlook there will be better co-operation and collaboration in South Africa. The hon. member submitted two points to the Minister. In the first place he asked whether the time has not arrived to give consideration to the appointment of a central co-ordinating council for air and sea transport and transport in general. I shall not go into that question at the moment. It is one of the policies on our side of the House that there should be co-ordination in respect of these things. We want co-ordination between air, sea and land transport. Consequently such a body may be necessary, but the question remains who will constitute such a board. We shall require some of our best men for that. That, however, is a question that can be given consideration in the future, and I shall not go into it at present. Then I should like to direct a few words to the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock). He thought it fit on Friday, in the same debate, to try to protect his lord and master. I must say that he did so in a very feeble manner. He said, in the first place, that formerly, when I was Minister of Agriculture, I was responsible for certain things, that I had made certain appointments, and given certain promotions, and that the Minister of Railways may now merely continue along the same lines. His argument is apparently that as the Minister of Agriculture made a mistake in the old days, it is no longer a mistake for the Minister of Railways to do something of the sort again. The hon. member for Sunnyside has also sought to defame the name of an Afrikaner, Dr. Geldenhuys. If Dr. Geldenhuys was an imperialist and had an imperialistic outlook, then I feel convinced that the hon. member would never have launched an attack against him. Dr. Geldenhuys did not obtain his promotion by wirepulling. He was appointed Under-Secretary to the Department of Agriculture, and after that he became Director of Forestry. He fulfilled his duties so admirably than when his chief was Deputy Prime Minister he deemed it good to send Dr. Geldenhuys to Italy as our trade commissioner. If he was as inefficient as the hon. member for Sunnyside tries to make out, then his chief would not at that time have approved of his being despatched to Italy to represent South Africa. This indicates the weak sort of argument that the hon. member has seized on to defend his Minister. He does not care whether he blackens and slanders people who have served their country. I am most deeply grieved that he has advanced this argument here, that because I appointed Dr. Geldenhuys at that time, it affords justification for the Minister of Railways doing certain things today. He went further and said that he at that time proposed a motion such as we have before us at present, and that it was not accepted. It was not accepted because not a single proof was submitted in support of the motion that was introduced at that time. The Leader of the Opposition has now introduced this motion, and we shall indicate what grounds necessitated our bringing this motion before the House. I thought, however, that I should not be doing my duty towards Dr. Geldenhuys, who has rendered so much good service to the country, if I did not exonerate him from this blame that has been placed on him, and which he has not deserved. He is an Afrikaner who is capable and who has fitted for the work which he did, and he is a man whom the people of South Africa will still need in the future.

Did you not alter the law in order to be able to appoint him?

No special alteration was made in the law. What we did was to appoint him Director of Forestry. The Public Service Commission made certain recommendations, and we accepted them, but seeing that the hon. member feels so strongly on this matter, I will say this to him also: He ought to know that when Dr. Geldenhuys took over the Department of Forestry it was a unilingual department built up on imperialist lines. Dr. Geldenhuys helped to place the department on Afrikaans lines, but the hon. member for Sunnyside naturally does not look at this correctly because he stands with one foot in London and the other in South Africa.

You know that is not so.

Now I should like to say a few words to the hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys). He is chairman of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, and it surprised me that he should attempt to defend the Minister in the way he has done. In the first place he made the allegation that we on this side of the House had launched an attack on Mr. Marshall Clark. I thought that the hon. member understood Afrikaans, but apparently he does not. My leader attacked the Railway Administration because Mr. Clark obtained promotion over the heads of others, but he did not make any personal attack on Mr. Clark. The hon. member for Kimberley (City) admitted that Mr. Clark had gained rapid promotion. Were there not other people who were entitled to that promotion; was a test made so that the other men could have an equal opportunity? No; no test was made, and to come here now and say that that man was so extraordinarily capable is no answer, because no test was made to ascertain whether the other men over whose heads he was appointed, were not entitled to the promotion. That argument will not hold water. But the remarkable thing is that after 40 years of Union we have the position today on the Railways that 78 per cent. of the chief officials are English-speaking.

I have explained that point.

It is high time that a change was made.

I explained that.

The hon. member said further that on this side of the House we expressed not a single word of appreciation to the Railway employees for the work they had done. Is that true? The hon. member knows it is not true.

I did not hear it.

I cannot help it if the hon. member was in the tea room all the time and not in his place. For eleven years we have felt on this side of the House that the Railway employees are a section of our officials who are one of the hardest worked. Some of them work for sixteen hours at a stretch in one day, and then they get a meagre remuneration. We have high placed officials who sit in their offices and watch the clock to know the time they can close down, but the personnel of the Railways are hardworking people, and we appreciate what they are doing, and they will always have our support. I should like to clear up a couple of points before I come to the amendment proposed by my Leader. The first is a question of the low paid employees. We have no fewer than 11,000 officials in the Railway Department who receive the meagre wage of less than 10s. a day. Now I ask the Minister of Railways, how in heaven’s name can an official with a wage of less than 10s. a day feed and clothe wife and children?

Did they not during the gold standard period also receive 10s.?

Today the coffers are full. They are so full that the Minister has to transfer funds to other quarters, and is this the time to say that at the time of the gold standard these people did not get more? That is a very weak argument. That shows the measure of respect that hon. member has for, and what he thinks of, his fellow Afrikaners who are working on the Railways. Does he wish to believe that this small wage is to be attributed to the gold standard? We have no longer to do with the difficulties of the gold standard. I say that it is high time that these things were rectified, and that those 11,000 officials must be treated better. It is rapidly becoming a scandal that those officials must work up to sixteen hours a day without having rest and sleep, and that they should then receive this pitiable wage? The stewards on the trains work very hard. Many of them are married men with families. They cannot clothe and feed their families properly. They must simply live under the bread line. Let me mention another point before I come to the motion. I would like to remind the Minister that I recently wrote to him in connection with the platform at Ottosdal. The country districts are treated in a very off-hand manner. At Ottosdal recently a woman broke her leg owing to there not being a proper platform to step on to from the train. A platform does not cost many thousands of pounds. It is made up of soil, and only on the front portion is there cement. Up to the present we have not been able to get this platform. What the reason is I do not know. I do not know whether is is obstinacy or whether the intention is to punish us in the country districts. There is also another case that I have previously mentioned and which I shall mention again. On a previous occasion I labelled it as the South African Black Hole of Calcutta. I mean the station at Piet Retief. It is not so much the station as the goods shed. That is built of galvanised iron, and has not even a verandah. In the summer the people are knocked out by the heat, and in the winter they shiver with cold. They have to load and unload in the rain, and the goods are packed outside. A tarpaulin is thrown over them, but in the corners the rain makes the stuff wet. The farmers are suffering great damage on account of there being no adequate goods sheds, and I think that the Minister should give his attention to this place. He should put the goods shed in order. I should like to inform him that about 5,000 soldiers have been in that locality during the last five years. The use of the station has increased to a tremendous extent, with the result that the public suffer very bad conditions. Now I come to the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in connection with this Bill. Allow me to say here. I should also like to name a case of rapid promotion. The name of Mr. Marshall Clark has already been mentioned. If other people are overlooked, then the Minister should be in a position to prove that the official in question is more capable than the others, and if he can do this then we on this side of the House will hold our peace. But that proof has not yet been afforded us. The proof has not been forthcoming that the officials who have been overlooked had the opportunity to vindicate themselves. Let me say something here in connection with the rapid promotion of Mr. Marshall Clark. The present head of the Railways knows that in October next year he must retire. He has a two-fold purpose in this promotion. By October he will not be able to grade up and grade down those officials in order to have the post of General Manager filled by his nominee. He can then easily go to the Minister and say that he will have to remain there at his post for another couple of years, and when his period of service is over then he will have a chance to regrade some men and to fix on his successor. That is what is behind all this. I should like to mention another case, namely that of Purvis who has become Secretary of the Railway Board. His salary was a maximum of £573 on the. 1st September, 1939. On the 1st October, 1941, he was graded with a maximum salary of £735. Six months later—the post was in the meantime regraded—namely on the 1st April, 1942, he was advanced to a maximum of £840. Fifteen months later, in June, 1943, he was advanced to a post with a maximum of £1,000. Over the heads of how many people did that man jump, while they had no chance to prove that they were just as good as he was? That is one of the unfairest things that we can get in such a service, that people are graded up and down in order to keep back certain individuals, and to promote and benefit others. That is the reason why we are pressing for an impartial commission of enquiry. Then I come to the secret memorandum that was drawn up by Mr. Hoffe, the General Manager of Railways. In that secret memorandum it appears that certain associations in the Railways that are disloyal must be destroyed. If there are disloyal organisations in the Railways then it is a matter of honour for the department to look into it. But what is a disloyal organisation? I will refer specially to the Spoorbond. No one can say that the Spoorbond is a disloyal organisation, because the Spoorbond has never been disloyal towards the administration. It is an organisation of workers that is recognised by the Department of Labour. The Spoorbond is recognised as a trade union organisation. But what has the Minister done to this organisation? Because a large number of the Afrikaans-speaking officials are members of Spoorbond, they are being victimised. In the first place the Minister refused to allow Spoorbond stop orders to be accepted any longer. The object of the Minister was to try in this way to break up the Spoorbond. But they did not sit down quietly under that. The Spoorbond was not prepared to admit that their being deprived of the stop order system should mean the breaking up of their organisation. What was then the second step that the department took? The second step taken by the department was to win over certain heads, and to apply a policy of divide and rule. Even then the Spoorbond declined to surrender. Pressure was exercised on them with the object of destroying the organisation, and I will show how that was done. There was reorganisation in the Spoorbond, a new committee was elected, and Mr. Auret was appointed chairman. Let me say here that it is desirable that the chairman of such an organisation should live near one of the big railway centres, namely, at Pretoria or Johannesburg. But what did the Department do then? In order to break up the Spoorbond they went and transferred Mr. Auret, the chairman, to Uitenhage. Although he had his home and a school for his children—an Afrikaans medium school—he was transferred in an arbitrary manner to Uitenhage, so that the Spoorbond might be destroyed. That sort of penalisation is exercised by the Department of Railways. I will just say this, that that line of conduct by the Department is becoming now nothing less than a disgrace. Eighteen months ago I wrote to the Minister about the transfer of officials from Breyton, and I said that this was done for political reasons. The Minister then replied to me that that was not the case, and that so long as an official did not figure in public they had nothing to do with his politics. He added that he respected a man’s feelings, and he did not want to know whether the men were Nationalists or Saps; but nevertheless we have to deal with hard facts, and I have mentioned the case of a person in Breyton who had his own house there—for he is a married man with children—but he has been simply transferred to a remote place in the Zoutpansberg, away from a good school and away from his own house. That sort of penalisation by the Department of Railways must now cease. I trust that the Minister will also cease from persecuting the Spoorbond. It is now two years since the game was started of trying to destroy the Spoorbond. I will tell the Minister this, that the Spoorbond will resist all his efforts. The Spoorbond is an Afrikaner institution, and the Afrikaners feel that they cannot kneel to him. The Minister will not succeed in crushing the spirit of the Afrikaners. We have listened to the argument here that we must observe how contented the Railway employees are, and then it is stated that hon. members opposite represent the railway seats. Is that a test? What about divisions such as Colesberg, Bethlehem, Harrismith, Gordonia, Wonderboom, Westdene, etc.? In all those electoral divisions there are numbers of railwaymen, and they are all Nationalist constituencies. That is no test. If you want a test you will have to alter the constitution and put all the railwaymen in eight or ten electoral districts, and then let them vote. I can give you the assurance that not a single Sap will be returned by them. The Minister does not know what the actual position is, because he and his chief officials do not come into contact with the men. They do not meet the ordinary railwaymen, and are not aware of the amount of discontent that exists. But I should like to come back to the secret memorandum that was issued. It is a secret memorandum that was drawn up by the General Manager, Mr. Hoffe. What do we read in this memorandum? I shall tell you briefly what appears in it. Inter alia, I read the following—

Well, who must be the judge as to whether a man is disloyal? In this connection I should like to read something that appeal’s on page 7 of the report of the General Manager of Railways; it has reference to our complaint that Afrikaans-speaking officials are not accorded their rights so far as regards promotion. He says this—

It is a difficult problem, because the key posts are not to be given to Afrikaners. And many posts are ranked as key posts. We see in this memorandum that the key posts must be preserved. I find here—

That appears in the secret memorandum. From that it appears that some officials must be relegated, and then they are replaced. And what are the terrible accusations that have been made? Officials in the Railway Service from various quarters of the country, from Durban to South West Africa, from Cape Town to Pretoria, from Johannesburg to Delagoa Bay, all the heads in the railway centres, were all assembled in order to discuss the memorandum, and in 99 per cent of the cases where charges of disloyalty had been made, or where there had been allegations that an official had done this, that or the next thing, the officials were able to refute them and to say that there was not a word of truth in them. In spite of this, the Department went ahead and officials were transferred in this way to other centres without even the system manager who must fully understand the position and who is in contact with these people, knowing a word about it. They simply had to loyally carry out the instruction they had received from headquarters. I understand that a committee was appointed, apparently the smelling-out committee, and that committee will naturally advise the general manager, and they will say that Tom, Dick or Harry must be transferred because a suspicion exists that the man is a Nationalist. He must be transferred to another district, and the circumstances that the man has a family, that he has a wife and children and that the children have to be educated, are not taken into account at all. These things are overlooked. I think that it is time that the Minister of Railways gave his attention to this matter, and therefore it is necessary to have an impartial committee who will also enquire into this matter in connection with the secret memorandum. Hundreds of our people are transferred unnecessarily by way of being penalised, and it has become an absolute disgrace. It is often said that the Minister of Railways is very just and honourable, but when you see these things going on in his department then you begin to doubt whether that is really the case. Accordingly, I am expressing the hope that the Minister will accept our motion. If he does not do that it will be clear to us and to the Railway officials that the Minister cannot face the test of an impartial investigation. It will be clear to the general public that he is afraid, after what has happened, of an honourable and appropriate enquiry. It does not help matters to say that certain things were done by previous Ministers, and then to take up the attitude that the present Minister can do likewise. The matter must be dealt with on its merits. I do not raise this in an unfriendly spirit, but because these are facts we are in possession of, and they cannot easily be controverted. We bring these facts to the notice of the Minister in the fullest confidence that he will have a committee appointed so that the matter can be dealt with. If we are wrong, then the committee can say so, but otherwise we shall continue to lay emphasis on this. We have done this now for several years, and we have alluded to the circumstances, but nothing has been done. Consequently it has been necessary for us to raise the point again. I can give the Minister the assurance that we, as the Opposition, shall be vigilant to see that the machinery of the State functions properly, and that we shall utilise all information we can obtain with a view to ensuring that there shall be clean administration in the Department of Railways, and that it will not be a matter of according patronage to officials, or that officials will be shelved simply because they are Nationalists. On those grounds I trust that the motion will be accepted

I rise at this stage of the debate to endeavour to reply in the first instance in some measure to the speech made by my hon. friend the member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). One does not expect the hon. member for Wolmaransstad to know much about railways, nor may one assume from his speech that he has fully acquainted himself with the greatly improved position of the unskilled labourer. I repeat that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is, in my opinion, not fully acquainted with the very great improvement which has been made in the status of unskilled labourers on the Railways. In that connection I do not consider that their position at present, is all that it should be, and members on this side of the House have already represented to the Minister that steps should be taken further to improve the position of unskilled labourers on the Railways. The hon. Minister has shown a very keen and lively interest in the affairs of that section of the staff which I must say was neglected at the time the Opposition were in office. He has referred to the position of the Spoorbond, and the action taken by the Minister. If the position of the Spoorbond is not what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad would wish it to be, then I can tell him what the hon. members on his side of the House should know, and that is that the Spoorbond killed itself. I want to say a few words about the amendment, and I take as my justification the fact that I spent many years in the administrative offices of the Cape Government Railway Administration in Cape Town, and of the South African Railways in Johannesburg, and although I am speaking at a late stage in this debate I think it only my duty to state my attitude towards the amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan). In the first place I desire to treat this matter from an entirely non-party point of view. I know very well that the Minister himself will be able to deal with the criticism that has been offered in respect of specific appointments on the Railways, but I do wish to say that in matters affecting servants of the State, whether they be on the Railways, or in other Government departments, the House would be well advised to cultivate a sense of proportion. The fact that names are bandied across the floor of the House does not reflect any credit on this assembly, and it is calculated to lower the tone of the State service of South Africa. When these statements are printed in newspapers in South Africa which have a party bias, it is more than likely that incorrect impressions will be caused of officers who hold high and honourable positions in the State service. I feel that it is a matter for serious consideration. I do not wish to lecture this House—far be it from me to do that—but as an ex-railway administrative officer of long standing I can say this, that debates of this nature involving men who hold high positions in the service, will not be fruitful of good, both in regard to this House itself and in regard to the servants concerned. I look upon this amendment as one which is aimed at the present Government and as having particular reference to the Afrikaans-speaking officials. Further, it names two senior officials in particular and it asks that a Select Committee of this House should be appointed to enquire into the whole of the arrangements made in connection with these appointments, and it limits the period to be covered as from 1939 to the present date.

We are prepared to extend the period as long as you like.

What I feel is this, that an enquiry such as asked for by the Leader of the Opposition should go back to at least 1924 to be fair to all concerned; but if the committee were to ask for the details of all promotions which have been made during the course of nineteen years on the Railways it would probably be sitting for about four or five years, because you have the position on the Railways that the seniority of officers is changed from year to year and there will be no finality.

Give them a chance.

I do not want to give the Opposition a chance; if the thing is justified and right let them have a Select Committee, but we have the interests of South Africa to consider. We have far greater interests at stake in this country than the appointment of one or two senior officers in the Railway Administration. We have at stake, what my friend the hon. member for Wolmaransstad indicated, the lives and homes of the needy Afrikaner. This debate, unfortunately, is inclined to have a racial tendency, and in my political experience I have endeavoured to show that it does not matter to me whether a man is Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking provided he is a South African. If this motion had dealt with the question of efficiency one would have seen that there was an indication at any rate of that question or otherwise of the officials promoted. I should like to say from my experience under the Cape Government and under the Union Government that you will never have a perfect system of promotion, and that the question of seniority will always arise. I see the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) is sitting in his place, or at any rate he is sitting in a place which he may shortly occupy judging by some of the speeches he has delivered in this House. He is well acquainted with the fact that under the Nationalist Government rapid promotions were not by any means few or far between. There was a time in the Railway Administration when it was actually considered that I was deserving of doing the “leap-frog” process, and I was promoted two grades at one time. Let me ask the hon. member for Vredefort whether he did not have a similar experience. I happen to know my hon. friend; he was an efficient man and enjoyed rapid promotion in the service. But what will this committee do? It will only perpetuate something that is detrimental to the best interests of the staff, for which all members of this House desire to work. That is my second proposition, that the amendment should cover the period back to 1924. I should say the committee might be limited to two members, the hon. member for Vredefort and myself, because when you consider the composition of such a committee I do wonder, with all due respect, whether this House is duly qualified to deal with the question of efficiency. I just visualise how a schedule will be drawn up showing when a man entered the service, what promotion he had in every case, and so on, and it would be an interminable job; and I would suggest to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, or to my hon. friend the member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) that they should withdraw this motion in the interests of all concerned. When I heard the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) speak I thought there was a forced expression, and that he was not altogether satisfied in regard to the advisability of going into the matter. Mr. Speaker, in the Railway Administration occasions arise when a special job has to be created to meet emergencies, and if the Administration is well advised, it will naturally see to the selection for such an emergency of the best man for the job. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) will confirm that during the 1924-’33 period a similar appointment was made—I shall not mention any names. An official was promoted over the heads of other officials in the service, because of his brilliance as an engineer—they used the elevator.

Give the name.

No, I shall not mention any names. Those who are acquainted with the Railways, and have had Railway experience, know to whom I refer. This man was promoted over the heads of others because he had exceptional ability, and he was actually given charge of two departments of the Railways on account of that. When the Railway Administration, in common with other Government Departments, is faced with the question of post-war reconstruction and the necessity for having a man—who is fully qualified and with sufficient years to go in the service—to take command of that work and see it through, it is criticised by hon. members of this House, who are not fully acquainted with the responsibilities which are attached to this position and will attach to the position in the years that are to come. The Railway Administration is going to make a tremendous contribution to the economic development of South Africa. In its post-war reconstruction, its new works schemes and in other directions it will have to take into account not only the expenditure involved, which will be tremendous, but what is best suited for the future expansion of our railways and our harbours; and it is necessary to appoint the best man obtainable and seniority must go by the board if we are to do our job in this great transportation industry in South Africa. The Administration has taken that point of view as far as I can see. It has selected a man who has proved himself in the front rank of the profession to which he belongs. He was responsible for very important work on the Reef. My hon. friend will remember that as he passed over the Reef there is evidence of the transformation that has taken place on the railways, without which we would not be able to deal with the passenger and goods traffic on the Witwatersrand; and it is necessary at this stage to pay a tribute to the officer mentioned in the amendment for the excellent services rendered to South Africa in connection with that work on the Witwatersrand. I say this, that the appointment of a select committee is only a labouring of the point. It will not be in the best interests of this House. It certainly will not be in the best interests of the Railway Administration, nor of the men whose interests my hon. friends opposite think they have an opportunity of serving. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad certainly knows it; he is a man of great experience. I have indicated that it is necessary at times when positions of special significance are under consideration, and it has been the practice, not only in South Africa but wherever you go, for experts to be imported from overseas. Would my hon. friend have preferred that the Government should have sent overseas for an officer to come to South Africa when we have a South African on the spot to undertake this work. No; the Administration has selected a South African to do a South African job. I hope we shall hear no more across the floor of this House in regard to the names of the gentleman concerned. Furthermore, as regards the remainder of the staff, methods of promotions are continually being discussed between representatives of the railway staff and the Administration. I should like that those officials who are most capable of understanding the intricacies of the question of promotion, should be afforded an opportunity of giving their assistance in this matter. No select committee of this House will be able to frame a scheme which would satisfy all the men concerned, much less members of Parliament. In this connection I want to congratulate the Minister upon the excellent relationship that has been arrived at between the Railway staff unions representing men of all grades, and the Administration, and I hope that the co-operation of the staff unions in the difficult problems engaging the attention of the Administration will continue in the best interests of the men concerned and of the country in general. We have arrived at a position of particular significance when these matters can be looked at from a national point of view, and when sometimes sacrifices are accepted for national progress. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) got up in this House and expressed himself rather heatedly on a matter of the composition of the Railway Board. He expressed his regret that political appointments had been made to the Railway Board.

Do you deny it?

I am not responsible for appointments to the Railway Board, but I want to say this—would my hon. friend have made the same speech when the Nationalist Government came into power and when the gentleman who was greatly instrumental in achieving a political victory for them at Wakkerstroom was placed on the Railway Board? I am not dealing with the principle at the moment, but what I do say is this: If you consider the speech of the hon. member for Waterberg you get the impression that this Government is responsible for something new.

Will you tell us whether your Government has not given that gentleman an important appointment recently?

That shows that this Government is not concerned with what the gentleman did in the past. It recognises his worth and it has given him the appointment. I wonder whether if the Opposition had been in power they would have done the same thing. We have arrived at that stage in the development of public affairs in South Africa when an official may expect promotion according to his ability. But, Sir, in regard to the composition of the Railway Board, hon. members will know that after Union the Railway Board was composed of ex-railwaymen. I think I am correct in saying that the first Board was composed of Mr. T. S. McEwan, General Manager of the Cape Government Railways, Sir Thomas Price of the Central South African Railways, and I believe eventually Sir David Hunter of the Natal Government Railways, was on the Board. These were all gentlemen who during their lifetime had contributed greatly to railway enterprise and development of South Africa. That position was changed. I personally hold the view as an ex-railwayman that it would be far better not to have a Railway Board if such a Board is not composed of men who are fully acquainted with railway science and development. I would like to go further and recommend the Government to take into consideration the question of whether we should not have an expert economist attached to the Railway Board. Furthermore, the position of the Railway staff unions is such today, that, in view of their expert knowledge and experience and also their practical outlook on national requirements, it is a matter for serious consideration whether the vast, army of railwaymen—numbering about 80,000 Europeans and about 56,000 non-Europeans—should not be represented on the Railway Board, and I offer the suggestion to the Minister for his consideration.

Tell us more about the present members.

He says they are no good.

I think the attitude and efficiency of a staff organisation particularly during the war period rather emphasises the necessity for the recognition of the principle, at any rate, that as far as possible, representation of the employees of the railways on various Boards should be extended. Now, Sir, I want to refer to something which I think should be mentioned. In the course of this debate, it has been stated that, with an Administration having tremendous surpluses, this and that should be done. Requests have been put forward for the construction of branch lines, and many other applications will be made to the Administration if the impression gets abroad that it is continuing to make huge surpluses, whereas a study of the bulletins issued by the General Manager indicates that the position is changing and changing rapidly. If one takes the financial position for the period April to November 1942, as compared with the same period in 1943, one finds that whereas in the first period the Railways showed a net surplus of £1,676,000 during 1943 for the same period, that is, from April to November—the net surplus is only £477,000. I make that allusion because I think it is necessary to check the demands that are made upon the Administration which during the time of large surpluses was able to give rebates and concessions here and there. It is necessary for us to call a halt lest we overstep the mark. The Railways should be the model employer of South Africa, and in its endeavours to improve the wage and living conditions of its employees it has reached a position which I think has never before obtained in South Africa, and those of us who are anxious to see that position maintained and improved as far as possible have to be very critical of any change in the financial policy of the Administration which would result in a diminution of its revenue or any weakening of its financial position. So I do hope that the Minister will set his face firmly against the construction of branch lines, wherever they may be asked for, if the proposals are not economically sound. Then, as I endeavoured to indicate, the Railway Administration will play a very important part in the economic reconstruction of South Africa. Its requirements in rolling stock and the necessary stores are considerable, as are the requirements of every public department, and it is a matter for consideration as to whether a survey should not be taken of all the requirements of our government departments, including the Railways, with a view to ascertaining to what extent those requirements can be met by local industries: and where it is not an economic proposition, whether the central Government should not assist in such a way that the bulk of the Railway Administration’s requirements can be met in South Africa. I am encouraged to find from the General Manager’s report that during the year ended March, 1943—the Administration, in order to improve the truck position, considered a proposal for the construction of trucks by a local firm, and after examination it was felt that advantage should be taken of the opportunity thus presented, and arrangements were made for the firm in question to build 1,000 bogie waggons, certain components being supplied by the Administration itself. This indicates a principle that might well be followed during the post-war period when the Administration, in certain cases at any rate, would be able by co-operation with local industries to produce more and more of its requirements. I spoke in the House the other day on social security and asked the Government to make a statement in regard to its post-war reconstruction programme. I feel, Sir, that if a statement were made to the country, vagueness in regard to the proposals would be dispelled, and the country would see in what directions the Government would proceed. And I want to ask the Hon. Minister of Railways in view of the importance of this matter from a Railways and Harbours point of view, whether he will not be prepared to make a statement in his budget speech in regard to the works that will be undertaken in order to provide for the existing staff plus 2,500 returning soldiers for whom he proposes to provide. I feel that the country would welcome such a statement from the Hon. Minister. In conclusion, I have read with gratification the statement on page 85 of the General Manager’s report dealing with social welfare work on the Railways. If the Minister were to prepare a pamphlet giving in detail the steps that have been taken in the past, and particularly during the war period, to improve the conditions, especially of the unskilled labourers on the Railways—particulars which would include housing, and all those matters affecting the livelihood of the man concerned—we should then know that, to a certain extent at any rate, the principle of social security has been taken into serious consideration and implemented in a measure for the railwaymen of South Africa. I wish to express my appreciation to the Hon. Minister and to the Administration itself for these steps and for the work of the Railway staff unions in encouraging and co-operating with the Minister in this respect. I hope that an appreciable advance will be made along these lines. And may I conclude with this, that I trust that the interests of the non-European employees will be taken into serious consideration from a social welfare point of view, and that we shall endeavour as a model employer, not only to meet other sections of the staff, but that we shall take as our first duty the upliftment and amelioration of the conditions of those who are most in need.

A serious complaint has been lodged against the Minister of Railways and his Administration. I have listened to the speeches of hon. members on the other side. They tried to justify the action of the Administration and of the Minister, but not one of them has succeeded in disproving or rebutting one of the cases mentioned here by the Leader of the Opposition. On the contrary, those hon. members tried to justify the present system, under which a person can be taken right from the bottom and taken by lift to a post where he will fit. There he is pushed in. We ask for proof that he has the merit, and as long as hon. members on the other side cannot furnish us with the proof that there was merit in these cases, we cannot withdraw the amendment, (as was asked by the hon. member who has just sat down. We know how that system works. It is not operative only in the higher paid section of the Administration, but it operates in another direction, and that is that the lowly-paid officials are held back in the same way. Posts are kept open; posts are not filled, and one finds that people are used for many years to fill these posts, but they do not receive the promotion to which they are entitled. We get those cases daily. We could mention them specifically; these are not cases which we are inventing. That is the experience of the worker. Hon. members on the other side say that the Railway Administration is held in such high esteem by the workers that they, on the other side, got all the railway votes. I can tell hon. members on the other side that in the Free State they did not take a single railway centre. The representatives of the Free State railway centres are on this side of the House. What is really taking place? I want to show what happens in the case of the higher paid officials. If they happen to be the chosen people of the general manager, their path is easy and they prosper. What happens in the case of the lower paid officials? I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the position in which the lower paid railway official finds himself. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Germiston the previous day in the course of this debate, that the greater portion of the workers on the Railways, the lower paid officials, have to work for a meagre wage. The Railways are making a great deal of money. They speak of great surpluses. They speak of great services which they are rendering to the war effort in different directions, but as yet they have done nothing for the lower paid Railway workers. What have they got? Has the Minister ever considered this? To a man who earns £1,000 or £1,500 or £2,000 per annum, a war allowance of 5 per cent or 7½ per cent. or 10 per cent. means an enormous addition, but it does not mean much to the poor man, the man who works on the railway line, who lives in a pondokkie, who has no proper house and who may have a large family. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he is satisfied that his Administration is treating those people fairly. I say “no”; justice has not been done to those people. Commissions are appointed today to go into the increase in the costs of living. But the Minister forgets that the price of most of the commodities had already increased considerably before the control system was introduced. Since the beginning of the war there has been proper price control, but I maintain that the prices had already gone up tremendously before they were fixed; that today those people have to spend double or more than double their cost of living allowance on the same salaries. Those people cannot clothe themselves properly, and they cannot even feed their children properly. I now want to come to a few matters which more specifically affect my constituency. I mentioned the case of people who are held back, who cannot get their promotions. Last year a similar plea was made in this House. The Minister agreed to the payment of certain arrear moneys to casual artisans. I find, however, that in my constituency there are still a number of artisans who up to the present have received no compensation. I want to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister once again. I brought another matter to the notice of the Minister which I regard as an absolute injustice to a certain driver. Through no fault of his own, but through the action of other people, he was suspended for ten months. He had to seek employment 30 miles from his house. He received the permission of the Administration to do so. When the court found him not guilty, the Administration came along and appropriated that money which he had earned 30 miles from his home at extra expense to himself, in order to keep his family alive. I discussed this matter with the Minister, but he said that he personally could unfortunately do nothing about it. I want to ask the Minister and his Administration to see to it that justice is done to everyone of these people who were wronged through no fault of their own. It was put here, and it is denied by the Railway Administration, that differential treatment is meted out to English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners. Our experience on the platteland is that that is a daily occurrence. The Afrikaans-speaking official is always held back. Certain hon. members have suggested that the English-speaking section of the people has greater aptitude; that they are better enginemen than the Afrikaners. I want to tell the Minister that those days are past. Thirty years ago one had of necessity to get a Scotchman from Scotland to drive an engine, but today the Afrikaner is just as capable. We make this plea, that the man who has qualified himself for the post should not be overlooked.

I do not wish to indulge in the vituperations which have fallen across the floor of the House regarding the question of promotions in the Railway service. I think that those have been adequately dealt with by members on this side of the House, but I will ask the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn) who has just sat down and who suggests that no reply can be given to these allegations, to wait until the hon. Minister replies, and I think he will then find that none of those allegations which have been made by members opposite hold water. The Leader of the Opposition has also objected to the annual report of the General Manager of Railways, in which he deprecates the dragging of the name of high Railway officials across the floor of the House. I personally agree with the General Manager of Railways. I feel that it is a matter to be deprecated that the names of high Railway officials should be dragged across the floor of the House and accusations made against them without the slightest substance or correct knowledge of the facts. I submit that while criticism is not resented, hon. members on the other side of the House must remember that there are two types of criticism, criticism that hits above the belt and criticism that hits below the belt.

Why not hit him on the belt?

My hon. friend has not got a belt to hit.

You won’t hit the second time.

No, you would not be there to be hit. Mr. Speaker, I will leave the matter at that, but I think that the Railway Administration, although they do not claim to have 100 per cent. efficiency, has done remarkably well in a period of stress, in the way in which it has run the Railway service, and that does not apply to only the higher officials but also to the lower paid officials who have put their backs into it, in order to run this service efficiently. I have quite a number of railwaymen in my constituency, and I am glad to have the opportunity of paying a tribute to them for the part which they have played in the efficient running of the Railway service. I wish now to deal with one or two other matters, and I want to suggest to the hon. Minister that the time has arrived when he should reinstitute the civil air service. I submit that that is a matter that he should consider now. It was a great boon to many people in the country and I think the time has arrived when those services can be reinstated.

I cannot get the planes.

I know that the Railways were very generous to the Defence Department in handing over to the Defence Department all the planes they had at the outbreak of the war, but I think the Minister could now with justification approach the Defence Department, and even if he does not get the same number of planes, he should at any rate get from the Defence Department a certain number which could start this service again. I think that in doing so he would have the approval of all sections in the House. Then, as the hon. Minister will recollect £30,000 was placed on the estimates four years ago for the improvement of the Fort Beaufort railway station, and whilst I am aware that that work has been held up as a result of the war, I feel that it is desirable and indeed necessary that a commencement should be made at that station at once, and if I might suggest it, that a commencement should be made in the goods sheds and buildings in which the goods clerks serve. I do not think that the appalling conditions under which those men are working can be realised. I know it is the intention of the Administration to serve its servants well, and here is an instance where by the expenditure of a small portion of the above amount, you can give those people conditions under which they can work happily and efficiently. I strongly urge that the work be started without delay, and the whole scheme completed. Finally, I raised the question last year of the meagre contribution by the Administration to the Road Motor Service. I still say the Railway Department is not giving sufficient to that particular purpose. Today we have road motor buses using the roads right throughout the country, and whilst they are doing a good service they are getting the use of roads on which a considerable amount of money must be spent annually, and which expenditure is far beyond the resources of many of the smaller Divisional Councils in the Cape Province. I say that the Railway Department should be more generous with its contributions, which will then enable more generous contributions to be made to those districts where the Road Motor Buses are used especially the smaller Divisional Councils, and I hope the Minister will consider this. I think it would be a good gesture on the part of the Administration, and one which will be very much appreciated. The Administration cannot expect Divisional Councils to maintain their roads properly, and which the Railway buses cut up, on the negligible contributions now made, and whereof some Divisional Councils get nothing. The public are not satisfied with having to foot the bill for the roads for practically the free use of these Railway buses.

I notice with great satisfaction that the Railway Administration undertakes to provide for their 14,000 employees when they return from Active Service, and that they also undertake to provide employment for another 2,500 returned soldiers. In reply to questions put by me and by other hon. members, I also notice that they have taken back certain internees. I do certainly hope that none of these returned soldiers will be put under those internees. After all, they have been interned for activities subversive to the State, and to my mind there is no worse person than an enemy of the State. I would like the Hon. Minister to give this House and the country the assurance that no returned soldier will be placed under an internee. I heard the speech by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to senior officials in the Railway service, and, Sir, the first thing that appealed to me was this, that under the Act of Union the Railways have to be run on businesslike lines and efficiency is therefore of paramount importance. In what way is the Leader of the Opposition able to judge whether these men are efficient or not? What qualifications have hon. members on the other side got to judge the efficiency of these officials? What do they know about it?

Why not let the Committee decide?

You know nothing about the subject.

You need not be impertinent.

They had no right to criticise the abilities of a man like Mr. Chittenden who has forgotten more about the subject than they will ever know. I happen to be in intimate touch with the commercial community of Johannesburg and I can assure the House that the opinions I have heard about Mr. Chittenden are of the highest and are the very opposite to these expressed in this House by hon. members on the other side of the House. Neither as Chief Stores Superintendent, nor in any other position he has held have I heard any adverse criticism about him, and the opinion of the commercial community of Johannesburg on this matter is worth a great deal more than the opinion of the hon. member for Waterberg or the hon. member for Piquetberg. Why do they not repeat outside the House what they have said here? They have made statements here without giving the person concerned the opportunity of defending himself. Would hon. members repeat outside what they have said here? This campaign is nothing but racialism, and is caused by chagrin at the Opposition losing the Railway vote in the last election.

I am quite prepared to make any statement I have made here outside the House.

The S.A. Railway service is one of high efficiency and morale, and campaigns of this sort tend to lower the efficiency and morale through officials not being able to answer these vile allegations. That this sort of campaign can take place militates against State undertakings. There are people who want hotels to be run by the Railways—I personally am in favour of that. But what sort of manager and other employees will you get if one or more of these officials is to be subjected to this type of racial criticism? You have it from the General Manager himself that efficiency is the primary consideration and seniority is the secondary consideration. Racial discriminations should not, and do not take part in the selection of individuals for appointment to, and within, the service. What sort of morale can one expect when the names of senior officials are bandied about and allegations are made without any justification, and what is more, when these persons have no means of justifying themselves? It is a cowardly attack on these gentlemen and I hope we shall hear no more about it in the future.

Hon. members on the other side of the House tried to make out that we on this side were engaged in making a racial attack. The truth is that we are opposing racialism. The Government started it. The Government made appointments ton a racial basis, and it is therefore the Government’s fault that we had to raise this matter. We want that type of thing to cease, and it was for that reason that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition introduced his amendment. The Government side is altogether wrong in saying that we raised this matter. On the contrary, we are opposing it. The matter which I should like to raise refers to a question which I put in this House in regard to the drying of grain by the grain elevators. This question was put to the Minister of Railways, and the reply was that I should direct the question to the Minister of Lands. I then put the question to the Minister of Lands, and he replied: “It is true.” But I had a further interest, namely, the building of the grain elevator at Wesselsibron. I interview the Minister of Agriculture in that connection. But it seems to me that there is a quarrel as to which Department the grain elevator system falls under, whether it falls under Agriculture or under the Railways. Agriculture says that it falls under the Railways, and the Railways say that Agriculture must furnish the reply because it falls under Agriculture. I want to point out that there is confusion as far as this matter is concerned, and I shall be glad if the Minister will decide once and for all under whom the grain elevator system really falls, and where we have to apply for assistance as far as the grain elevators are concerned. Another matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister, is that the opinion is generally held in the country that the time is past to build railway lines, and consequently not many applications are made for the building of railway lines or for an extension of railway lines. There is an impression outside, and even in this Parliament, that it is impossible to get a further expansion of railways, because it is not a payable means of transport. I have before me the report of the Railway Line Revision Commission, and on page 34 of the report I find the following—

Here we have the report which was brought out by the Railway Line Revision Commission and in that report it is stated explicitly that railways still remain the most important means of transport. For that reason I make bold to make a plea today for a certain line in my constituency. It concerns a railway line which runs to a dead end, namely, from Bothaville to Bultfontein. There we have a line which was built years ago, and which brought a large section of that fertile land under cultivation. It is estimated that during recent years 500,000 to 750,000 bags of mealies were conveyed annually over that short line of 70 miles. This year large quantities of mealies will again be transported over that line, because last week one of the members of the Irrigation Board told me that in those parts he saw better mealies this year than he had seen in any other part of South Africa. Those parts are served by this branch line which comes to a dead end, and since the conditions there are so favourable, and since the branch line runs to a dead end, it is a privilege to me to bring to the notice of the Minister of Railways the fact that that line ought to be extended so that it can link up with another place and form a through line. It is not for me to say where it should link up. The inhabitants concerned and the Railway Board can determine that. It is only my duty to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that it is essential to extend that line. This line is already a payable proposition, and it will become an even more payable proposition if it is extended to link up with another line, because as soon as it becomes a through line, more goods can be conveyed at a higher tariff. Because it is a branch line, as is the case now, only heavy products like mealies, etc., are conveyed. But if it were a through line, passengers would also be able to use that line. At the moment that is impossible, because it means that where it ought to take the passengers a few hours to get on to the main line, it now takes them two days with the branch line to get on to the main line with the detour. It would hot only increase the conveyance of payable products, but it would also conserve rolling material. The rolling material must now traverse the same line twice. In the same report on page 105 we see that the Railway Line Revision Commission also submitted a report in regard to the lengthening of this line, and I should like to read to the House what the Commission had to say in that connection. I want to point out that there are three possible directions in which the line can be lengthened. The report reads as follows—

I am convinced that those things to which this report refers have now taken place. As all hon. members know, in recent times there was extensive boring for gold in the Free State. It is in that very neighbourhood that the branch line is situated and where an extension is being sought. The report says that when the gold development reaches a more definite stage, the matter should be further investigated, and then the extension of the line can be recommended. It is known that boring for gold in those parts of the Free State has made such strides that there is no longer any question as to whether the gold fields will be a payable proposition. It is now a certainty. We read recently that the chairman of one of the big gold mining companies stated in his presidential address that it was clear that the Free State would become one of the biggest gold fields in the world. I think it was the chairman of the New Goldfields who said this in his presidential address. There is a great possibility that if that area is fully developed, according to the chairman of this company, it will be possible to provide employment for a million Europeans. Since we have now reached that stage which is mentioned in the report, and since the Government is looking for fields of employment in order to solve its big post-war problems, I feel justified in making a plea that the Government should give special attention to this line which at the moment runs to a dead end. I hope that the Government will be prepared to extend this line, so that it will be linked to one or other of the existing railway lines. But there is still a further argument. We always hear complaints that the existing railways are overloaded with traffic. We know that two lines runs from Johannesburg, one via Kimberley and one via Bloemfontein. Here we have a line which can easily be converted into a third line from Johannesburg. Fortunately the third line runs between the other two lines, so that this line could easily become the third line, running parallel with the existing two, and it could therefore to a great extent relieve the traffic on the two existing main lines. If the Government deems fit, it could use the middle line for the conveyance of heavy traffic, and the main lines for fast traffic. I feel convinced, therefore, that the Government owes it to the country, to future development and especially to those parts to take this matter into careful consideration, and to grant this extension of the line to the Hoopstad constituency.

I am sure that the House generally recognises the internal economic efficiency of the Railway Administration. I should like, however, to discuss briefly some of the unsatisfactory relationships between the Railways and the general economy of the Union. Ours is a dual economy; that is to say, it is a hybrid between a socialised system and a capitalistic economy; and whether those of us here have an ideology which is socialistic or individualistic, I think we are all agreed, in view of the tremendous needs of our country, to co-operate, in order to make this dual system work to a maximum. Now, as could be expected of any dual system, there is always the fear that socialisation will more and more invade the field of private enterprise. Though in South Africa we have demarcated the field as between private enterprise and the State, there is nevertheless a good deal of confusion in regard to the position and in the way it is working out. This is due, I think, in a large measure, to the fact that the State is constantly setting up big enterprises which are really capitalistic, both in their form and their operation. The South African Railways is one such organisation. It is an independent economic unit working to its own policy, to its own plans, and not aligning itself adequately with other big economic units in the country. Most members here hold the view that we must work towards an integrated national economy in order to ensure the maximum use of our human and material resources. Our tendency, however—and it has been very evident during this debate—is quite clearly in the direction of the disintegration of our economy. It is certain that a struggle is pending; and if we consider the remarks of the Minister of Finance a few days ago, and the Press reactions to the struggle, as far as it has gone, we shall realise that the time is ripe for the State to take some definite action in rationalising the whole economy of the Union. I take the Railways as an illustration of what I have in mind. It is a powerful State-guaranteed monopoly affecting every aspect of the economic life of our people. It is true that it provides essential services to all industry. It is true that it has set up an excellent system of social security for its employees. But it is also a competitor as a producer and distributor, using vast social capital and assets on which a very large section of our population are dependent. It has its own fiscal and budgetary policy. Every industry in the country depends on it; every municipal and local authority fashions its programme, is obliged to, according to its policy. It has its own housing arrangements, its health services, its training schools, some of which come into competition with State schools; it will soon have its own hotels; and it is, I believe, contemplating a shipbuilding industry. It is also a wage-fixing body working outside the provisions applicable to other industries. Though it is one of the biggest employers in the Union, its wages, to certain members of the Administration, can only be described as appalling. For example, there are 550 non-Europeans, a particular type of non-European, employed in Durban at an average wage of £4 15s. per month. A visit to the Railway barracks there, where some 400 Indians are housed, is sufficient proof of the squalor, the inadequacy of clothing and feeding and the low standard of health and efficiency of these employees. Its wages for many categories of Europeans are not even subsistence wages. I hope the Minister in his Budget will abolish these slave conditions in South Africa, and will prescribe a non-European basic minimum wage of £10 per month, and £25 per month as a European minimum wage. The South African Railways are a state within a state. I am not merely criticising Railway policy when I say that. I am just trying to visualise South. Africa as an economic unit with the Railways continuing to work efficiently as today, but more rationally co-ordinated with other big economic units, both corporate and private, and not undertaking activities which private enterprise can carry on as well. Because economic co-ordination in South Africa is not being fully organised, we are subjecting non-State enterprise to stresses which are seriously restricting capital investment for further production, and when it is remembered that we need in this country, in order to ensure full employment after the war, an additional £30,000,000 per year from private capital, for further investment, and when it is also remembered that we are still very far from a socialist state—I do not consider the South African Railways or Iscor as socialist institutions—then to maintain the integrity of our dual system, whether we like that system or not, we must consider measures to induce the maximum investment effort from all non-State enterprises. It is hoped the Minister of Finance will give us a lead in this matter in his budget. But administrative adjustment is also necessary. I think this is the tenor of the debate, this, that the time has come for the South African State to restore some semblance of equilibrium to our economy by itself assuming directive control over the South African field through one competent body—call it a National Planning Council if you like—to co-ordinate and reconcile all the economic activities in the country. I just want to illustrate this point, by referring to reconstruction planning. I take the case of the Durban City Council. It has drawn up a provisional programme for expansionist action after the war. But municipal enterprise is linked up with Railway enterprise. The South African Railways control areas of the City, and also the Harbour; no real progress therefore is possible without simultaneous interlocking and timing of the plans of the Administration and those of the City Council. In a report submitted recently to members of Parliament for the Durban area, the Council stated: “It is not possible for the Reconstruction Committee to report on any aspect of the schemes contemplated or being planned as regards Railways, Harbours, Aerodrome development, and Naval and Military requirements, so far as they may affect the scheme of the City Council.” I would appeal to the Minister to speed up co-ordination between his Administration and the Council. The initiative lies with him. The same need for coordination exists throughout the country. Now, there are no doubt good reasons for this exclusive Railway policy; but it should not in this way be the arbiter of the requirements and developments of local bodies. We need a body, shall I call it a supra-departmental body, to rationalise our development, and make our national planning effective. Today we appear to have no national plan. The agricultural and industrial requirements commission had this planned co-ordination in mind when it referred to Railway rating policy in these words: “Unless tariff policy is framed in close conformity with a coordinated national economic and social policy, there is grave danger that decisions may be made without due regard to all the national issues involved.” Railway economic policy together with the control of motor transport in this country, are both matters which are vital to our total economic national effort. They require the attention of the Minister with a view to the necessity for industrial development for the reconstruction of European farming, and in particular, for the re-organisation and rehabilitation of the native reserves. I mention these matters to emphasise the need for national co-ordination. And what applies to the independence of the South African Railways applies to all other forms of State capitalistic enterprise in South Africa. They work in the main as segregated units without adequate Parliamentary control, without co-ordination, without being subject to one master plan for the Union. The result is, that though all of us know from bitter experience the dangers of an uplanned peace, we seem to be heading for disintegration of our economic life, as happened in 1920. It is a sine qua non of successful planning that the Government set up without delay an effective economic planning council, not a part-time body like the one we now have which meets for only a few hours per month. It is hoped that the Prime Minister will take early action to bring this National Planning Council into being so that our economic programmes will be co-ordinated, pre-planned and properly timed. We require a council to be representative of the producing, the technical and the consuming interests of the country, representative both of the State and of private enterprise; to be answerable to Parliament; to be under a chairman who should have the same tenure and the same power as a judge of the Supreme Court; its duty would be to create a national social and economic pattern and to marshal our economic forces, to co-ordinate the activities of all Departments of the Provinces, and of the local authorities, so that all interests, both public and private, will each be strengthened in its own field; will subserve the common good; and will ensure the maximum economic effort in South Africa with the objective of complete social security for the people of our country.

I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley) pay tribute to the workers of the South African Railways and Harbours, not only those who are serving with the fighting and construction services up North, but also those who have done and are still doing such a wonderful job of work in the railway workshops in the Union. It is on behalf of this latter class that I wish to make some appeal. The constituency I represent has within its midst a fairly comprehensive railway workshop, and it has been my privilege from time to time during the past years to have a look round these shops and I must say that I have been very impressed indeed with what I have seen—particularly during the war period. But I should also like to say that I have been very distressed at the conditions under which these men have to work. I say, and say emphatically, that they have to work under conditions that the Legislature of this country would not permit in connection with private enterprise. In other words, this Government compels private enterprise to do what the Railway Administration has not yet accomplished in respect of its own employees. Let me try to give you some slight picture, as I see it, of these workshops. On the last occasion I visited them I found, that even making allowance for additional over-crowding due to war emergencies and contingencies, there was such over-crowding as made it almost impossible for the men to produce their maximum output. If they have produced under existing conditions the enormous output they have been given credit for, and which I am sure they have done, how much more could they have produced if the conditions had been more healthy and congenial. Some of those shops are so constructed that during working hours they are deprived of the light of day. In another portion of the works, that allotted to the reconstruction of the locos and coaches the men have to work out in the open in all kinds of weather. In some shops the workers are so congested that they have hardly sufficient room to carry on the job they have to do. In the smithy shops the same conditions exist; as a matter of fact it is almost comparable with the Black Hole of Calcutta. To say the least, it is a very unfair state of affairs to ask any man to endure these conditions day in and day out, week in and week out, and I do hope that the Minister will take cognisance of those facts and speed up the reconstruction that has been promised. I am in a position to know that negotiations are taking place in this connection; of that I am satisfied. But there seems to be such terrific delays between the planning and the accomplishment. I wish to assure the Minister that the City Council of East London are willing to meet the Administration whenever and wherever possible. They are anxious to see better conditions prevail among the considerable number of men who have to earn their livelihood within the municipal area of East London, and I am perfectly satisfied that if the Minister will endeavour to expedite these negotiations something could soon be accomplished. I am not exaggerating, because what I have said I have seen, and it will be in the best interests of the state when the conditions in regard to the accommodation in which these men have to work are improved.

I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to that hardy annual, the Rates Equalisation Fund. For the benefit of those who may be new to the House, it may be as well to remind the Minister of the original purpose of that fund. The Rates Equalisation Fund as it is termed was founded to act as a railway wages stabilisation fund, and it was introduced after the great depression of 1929. The then Minister of Railways, in announcing the institution of the fund, said that its purpose was to provide that in the event of any depression occurring again, railway wages should not be cut again. Now, sir, that fund which originally aimed at £2,000,000 today, according to the Auditor-General’s report, stands somewhere in the neighbourhood of £7,500,000, and the question has arisen from time to time whether that fund could, in fact, be used to stabilise wages, as was the original purpose of the fund. The Minister has said—he told the House last year—that it was immaterial whether the fund was used to stabilise wages, or to stabilise rates, because if rates were kept stable then the general revenue of the Railways would not drop, and therefore there would be no need to cut wages. That was his contention. Since then, apparently, the advice of the Law Advisers has been sought on this vexed question, and in the Auditor-General’s report he refers to this advice of the Law Advisers, who say that under no circumstances could this Rates Equalisation Fund be used to stabilise wages; and he goes on to say that if it were so used, it would be open to any member of the general public to complain about that and to take that matter to the courts. I would like the Minister to consider this contingency, assuming that his contention is right that by stabilising rates there would be no need to cut railway wages, that nevertheless this situation might arise, there might be another post-war depression, and as a result of that depression it might be necessary, as unfortunately happened in the past, to cut the wages of all the rest of the civil service. The Minister contends that even in such a contingency he will be able, by keeping rates stable, to prevent any cut of railway wages. But in such an event it might very well be open to any member of the general public, according to this Law Advisers’ report to take the point that if in effect the only servants of the state whose salaries were not cut were the railway servants, then in effect the Rates Equalisation Fund was being used to stabilise wages and that would create a very difficult position.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate adjourned; to be resumed on 22nd February.