When we adjourned I was dealing with clause 2 of the Bill. The object of clause 2 is to amend the Act, as it reads today, in this respect, that a claimant, if he cannot agree with the administration on the amount of compensation, will be compelled to go to court. Since the Bill was drafted I have discussed the question with the Minister of Railways, and I understand that he is prepared to accept a suitable amendment which will still give the claimant the option of going to arbitration if he prefers to do so rather than go to court. The amendment as now proposed will therefore give the Minister the right to give the claimant the choice of going to court, or of settling the dispute by arbitration. I am satisfied with that. Finally, I want to ask the Minister if possible to introduce consolidating legislation next year so that all these amendments may be consolidated in one Act. We are now considering the ninth amendment to the original Act and one requires a whole set of statutes if one wants to turn up a particular point. We should greatly appreciate it if the existing Acts could be consolidated into one Act. In regard to the first amendment, I want to mention my point again in order to refresh the Minister’s memory. The question is, should not the Railways register all their land in the Deeds Office? I think it is essential for all the Administration’s property to be duly registered with the proper Government Offices, and I also feel that all the Administration’s property should be transferred into the name of the Administration.

I would like to compliment the Hon. the Minister on this Bill and on the way he has approached the problem. He realises that this Bill is designed to simplify negotiations. I have seen the Minister in regard to this Bill and he has assured me that he will accept the amendment in regard to clause 2, that it would be at the option of the claimant to elect whether he went to arbitration as heretofore in a case of damage that may be suffered by an owner, or an occupier of land, or whether he availed himself of the provisions provided by this clause, and goes to the Magistrate’s Court for a case under £750 and to the Supreme Court for claims exceeding that amount. I just want to say how we appreciate the Minister’s attitude in this regard and that we are very pleased that he has expressed his willingness to accept an amendment to make this provision in the Act.

In regard to the question which has emanated from the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper), I would like to point out to him that if his request is complied with, it would involve the Administration in endless trouble and unnecessary expense. It would mean that diagrams would have to be framed of every piece of ground expropriated by the Railways, and when that ground is abandoned it would mean re-transfer. If the hon. member considers the matter in its proper perspective, I am sure he will agree with me that the request he made is not a reasonable request and cannot serve any useful purpose. With regard to the other provisions in the Bill I am very glad of the assurance that the Minister is prepared to leave the owner the choice of arbitration, and for this reason, that under the law as it stands today the owner who goes to arbitration very seldom has costs awarded against him. At the most he can be made to pay his own costs, whereas if the owner were deprived of the right of going to arbitration, it would mean that he would run the risk of costs being awarded against him. We are all called upon at some time or other to make a sacrifice in the interest of the common good but one wants to make that sacrifice as light as possible. No one likes to be called upon to sacrifice property where he is not prepared to sell of his own volition. The present law makes provision that in a case up to £750 the owner can go to the magistrate, and the magistrate can appoint two assessors with him and decide the amount of compensation. That, to my mind, is almost a better provision, but seeing the owner is to be allowed the choice of arbitration proceedings, whether it be before an inferior court, or whether it be before a superior court, I think the owner’s rights have been safeguarded and we want to express our appreciation to the Minister.

I would like in the first place to confirm that it is my intention to accept an amendment at the appropriate stage to this Bill giving the owner of the farm or the land to choose for himself, whether he goes to arbitration or to the magistrate’s court, the magistrate’s court being limited to a maximum amount of £750. In regard to the question that was raised by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) as to the introduction of a consolidating measure, I would not like to give any specific undertaking now, but I will undertake to look into the matter and see whether something of that sort can be done next session. As to the question of taking out title for all Railway land, I cannot see what useful purpose would be served by this. We do, in fact, take out title for station premises and for land going through Municipal areas, where it is important that there should be accurate diagrams made as to where our land begins and where it ends. But where Railway lines for the most part go straggling through the country it would be a very costly business indeed to take out title for these lines, and we would achieve nothing by it because, in fact, our expropriatory title is as complete as any title can "be, and I do not think any good purpose can be served by adopting the suggestion of the hon. member. I would just like to thank the House for the reception it has given to this small Bill, and I have nothing else to reply to at the moment.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 21st February.

I move—

This Bill which I am now introducing provides for an amount of £14,000,000 for Railways and Harbours Services for the year 1944-’45. It is usual to provide funds from the end of this financial year until such time as the annual estimates have been approved of by the House. The amount now asked for is adequate to cover expenditure for three months, for the reasons indicated by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, when he introduced his Part Appropriation Bill. I do not at this stage propose to anticipate my Budget speech, but I shall confine myself to formally moving the second reading.

I wish to move an amendment to the motion proposed by the Minister in the following terms—

1. (a) the promotions since 1939 of officials in the Railway service to senior posts, in particular the promotions of Messrs. Chittenden and Marshall Clark;
2. (b) the grading and regrading of posts connected therewith; and
3. (c) the alleged injustice done to senior and particularly Afrikaans-speaking senior officials;

This amendment aims at the appointment by the Government of a Commission consisting of members of Parliament. In the ordinary course of events a matter such as this should be referred to a Select Committee of Parliament. It is difficult for me at this juncture to move to that effect, as the appointment of a Select Committee rests with Parliament itself and not with the Government, but I hope that the Minister in his reply will so amend my proposal that the Government will refer the matter to a Select Committee. I shall then be prepared to amend my amendment in that direction. The amendment I propose is based on a charge against the Minister and his Department on two points. The one charge is that promotions are made in the Railway service with one specific object. That specific object is to benefit certain people who occupy lower positions in the service, and to promote them over the heads of others who have a greater right to such promotion. The second part of the amendment contains this charge that an improper act is committed for that purpose, and that a system of grading and regrading of posts in the Railway service is employed for that purpose. It has not been my practice to take part in debates on Railway matters. As a rule I prefer to leave these subjects to people who have specialised more particularly in them, and who can speak on them with greater authority than I can, but the subject dealt with in my amendment is of paramount importance. Year after year we have had serious complaints in this House on these very points which I mention in my amendment, namely that there is manipulation in the Railway service, as I have explained here, and that that manipulation is indulged in not to promote the well-being of the country or of the Railway service, but that that manipulation is for a very different purpose, and that it is entirely racial in its purpose. Those complaints reached their height last year in discussions in this House. These questions affect the permanent interests of the people; they affect the relations between the races in this country and we are very anxious that those relations should be placed on a satisfactory basis. It is for that reason that I want to say here, and I say it most definitely, that it is time, and high time at that, for a stop to be put to that condition of affairs, and it is for that reason that I have moved this amendment, and that I am asking the House to have the subject thoroughly investigated so that we may be able to see the position in its true perspective. I have a right, I think, to talk about these matters. In a sense I am perhaps a little more entitled to do so than the ordinary member of the House. The reason for my saying so is this: I myself was a member of the Government for nine years and I think I have every right to say that on this question of appointments, not to the Railway service but to the public service, no charges were ever made against me, nor could such charges ever justifiably be made against me. I have always tried to adhere to two things—first of all the constitution, the constitution which lays down equality of languages, and which therefore demands bilingualism in the public service, and I have tried to stick to the constitution and to other laws on language requirements based on that principle. Secondly, so far as appointments are concerned, I have never been guilty, so far as I know, and so far as evidence inside and outside the House goes, of racial discrimination. I have always in that respect considered matters on their merit. I was a member of the Government for nine years, and I have perhaps had greater opportunity than anybody else, than any other Minister, of getting to know what influences are at work in the public service, improper influences in regard to appointments. Not only was I a Minister but as Minister of the Interior I more particularly had to deal with the public service, and I can say this to hon. members, that judging by the experience I have had, influence and very strong influence is brought to bear, also outside of the Government itself, on the subject of appointments to the public service. There is an organisation in this country, a strong organisation with its branches stretching in all directions, whose aim it is to make its influence felt in all appointments, especially where key positions in the public service are concerned. That influence is employed with every possible assistance, to get English-speaking people—even if they are not always unilingual, but sometimes even unilingual people—appointed to key positions, and to keep Afrikaans-speaking people, and especially Afrikaans-speaking persons who are keen on carrying out the basic principles of the South Africa Act in regard to language requirements, out of key positions. I say that I know what I am talking about. The Afrikaans-speaking person who is well qualified and who has a good record of service behind him, as a rule finds, if nothing can be said against him, if there is no other reason available, why he should not be promoted and appointed to a key position that the excuse is put forward that temperamentally he is not fit for the post. We have had that over and over again. It is not alleged that he is not a good official, but the allegation is that temperamentally he is not suited for the post. What do the words “temperamentally unsuited” mean? They mean nothing but this: He is known as a man who conducts his official correspondence in Afrikaans, also with other officials; he is known as a man who insists on the language requirements being strictly adhered to in accordance with the laws of the country. And then he comes into conflict with someone in the service who does not want to carry out those requirements, and the allegation is made that he is temperamentally unfit or unsuited to be placed over others. I know the method, and besides that we have this: We are at war today and some people, even in the Administration, have a suspicion or a feeling in their minds—often it does not go beyond that—they have no proof—that others are opposed to the Government’s policy. In any case they imagine that these people are not in sympathy with the Government policy, and they do all they possibly can to find out what their views are. Lists for the Governor-General’s Fund, for instance, are placed before officials and they are asked to put down their names for subscription, and if an official refuses to do so he at once is a marked man. He is sometimes told: “Well, put your name on the list and put a nought behind it, and give your reasons why you don’t want to give anything.” That has actually happened. That is one way and there are other ways, too, of people hoping to find out whether a man is a supporter of the war policy; a smelling out process takes place, and these people become marked men. This particularly applies to Afrikaans-speaking officials in the service. As I have said, in my amendment a direct charge is made against the Government. I am not asking the House just to take my word, I am not asking hon. members to accept my statements, but I do ask them to insist on a full and thorough enquiry, and an impartial enquiry into this whole matter. Let this whole question be thoroughly gone into and cleared up in the interest of the Railway service, in the interest of the country, and in the interest of the good relations between the races. In what I am going to say I shall confine myself more particularly to one particular instance which will prove all I have said. Before coming to that, however, I just want to say that we must consider the question in its true perspective. That perspective was created last session when Railway matters were under discussion here; we first of all had a disclosure of what had happened and I found it necessary to get up in this House to deal with that particular occurrence. We had a disclosure showing the secret and underhand efforts that are made in the Railway service, to do away with the language requirements or at any rate to relax those language requirements. I believe I am correctly describing what actually took place. So far as language requirements are concerned the late Mr. Charlie Malan brought them into conformity with the provisions of the law on language requirements in the public service, that is to say legislation was passed providing that after a certain date nobody who was not bilingual was to be appointed to the clerical division of the Railway service. There was no doubt left as to the meaning of “bilingual.” A bilingual person must be able to read, write and speak both Afrikaans and English, and must also be capable to draft documents in those languages. That is bilingualism. After five years the same provision was also to apply to promotions and not merely to new appointments to the public and Railway services. Those were the measures passed by the Minister’s predecessor, the late Mr. Charlie Malan. What he did was to bring the provisions in the Railway service into conformity with the provisions in the public service. When Adv. Pirow was Minister of Railways he allowed a certain amount of relaxation. Out of consideration for officials who were 55 years and over he said that so far as promotions were concerned these provisions would not apply to them. In other words, he granted an extension of the provisions until 1939. I am glad the Minister told the House when we on this side protested, that Mr. Pirow had no right to do so. He acted directly in conflict with the provisions of the law. I am glad the Minister recognised that fact. But what happened? It came out in the debate last year. A secret circular, marked “secret,” was sent out by the General Manager, and that circular letter provided, first that unilingual officials must also receive consideration in the matter of promotions, and it went even further and said that those officials who were responsible for making appointments must certify to the Minister that unilingual officials had received consideration for promotion. This secret circular even went a step further and said that if a unilingual official was passed over for promotion reasons must be adduced stating why he had been passed over. And furthermore, if he was passed passed over, and the reasons why he was passed over were given, an enquiry was to be made and a report put in whether the person concerned had made a serious attempt to become bilingual. All this can have only one meaning, and this is the reason: That where the law protects the bilingual official in the service against the unilingual official, so far as appointments and promotions are concerned, the General Manager of Railways turns it round the other way and he tries here to protect the unilingual person against the bilingual person. It can have only one meaning and that is the one I have mentioned. Now the excuse is given that the Minister, or the General Manager, wanted to know exactly what the position was inside the service, even in regard to individuals. To my mind, to say the least of it, it is a very poor excuse. The Railway Administration knows all about the seniority of officials. It is all on record, it is all in the official documents. And the Administration also knows which officials in the service are unilingual and which are bilingual. Under the laws of this country a man is either unilingual or bilingual. There is nothing in between the two. One either comes into the category of unilingual or bilingual officials, and the category one is placed into is determined by a test which has to be taken, and surely the Minister and the General Manager know who has successfully passed that examination and who has not. To come here and say that he has issued the circular because he wants that information, is nothing but an evasion and a very poor excuse. The Minister reacted to the debate last year, and all I can say is that his attitude was nothing short of tragic. First he said that he knew nothing about this secret circular which had been sent out by the General Manager. He knew nothing about it. That in itself is a reflection on the way important matters of this kind are dealt with by the Minister’s Department. Then he said that if he had known anything about it he would have approved of it in the light of the position as put before him. I think it was a serious thing for the Minister to approve of the action taken and to refuse to repudiate the General Manager in that respect. And then, in spite of what he had said, in spite of his having said that he approved of it, he defended himself by saying that he had subsequently issued another circular before the question was ever raised in this House, and in that circular he had stated that the language requirements would be strictly adhered to in accordance with the provisions of the law. First of all he approves, and then he repudiates the very thing he approves of. The defence put up on that point was tragic. It shows what has happened, and also what goes on between the Minister and the General Manager of Railways. He does not know what the General Manager of Railways does on the quiet. The General Manager of Railways acts on his own initiative in an important matter of this kind, and then the Minister has not got the courage frankly and directly to come here to repudiate the General Manager’s action. My first charge deals with the intrigues that go on in respect of the grading and regrading of posts. As I have said, I want to confine my remarks specifically to one or two points. The grading and regrading have one specific object—to prevent Afrikaans-speaking people, who have the necessary ability and the required seniority, from being appointed to key positions. Last year chapter and verse were quoted on this very point. The Minister in his reply merely spoke in generalities. He did not defend one single particular instance we had quoted. But the General Manager of Railways has now taken it upon himself in his annual report to refer to the Minister’s defence in this House, and he has taken it upon himself to criticise what was said here and what was done here by hon. members. That primarily shows that the General Manager of Railways was of opinion that the defence put up by the Minister was very feeble indeed. He thought it necessary to come to the Minister’s assistance and to support him in his attitude. That goes to show that he regarded the Minister’s attitude as very feeble. He considered his defence feeble. I have a further objection to raise to this year’s annual report of the General Manager. I have no objection to his mentioning promotions and to his explaining the system in force in the administration in regard to promotions, but I very definitely object to his interference with discussions which take place in this House, and I object to the way he does it. Listen to what he says—

So he sits outside and now he comes along in an official report and he deplores the attitude adopted by members of this House—

All I can say in this connection is that it is not only an interference by an official outside with the debates in Parliament, but it constitutes an act of audacity. The rule laid down for the public service is that the responsibility to Parliament is borne by the Minister. The Minister has to function here, not only on his own behalf but also on behalf of the Department and on behalf of the officials. But here we have the General Manager of Railways taking it upon himself in his annual report, so to say, to take Parliament and Members of Parliament to task. I ask who is Minister of Railways? Is the Minister the man sitting on the Government benches, or is the Minister of Railways the man sitting obliquely behind him in the official bay? Who is the Minister of Railways? I protest against this attitude. An official is an official and remains an official, even if he walks about in uniform, and if an official does not know his place towards Parliament, then it is time, and high time, he was told. And now I come to the intrigues that are indulged in in regard to grading and regrading. I do not propose dealing with the General. Manager’s remarks in his annual report on this subject but in view of what happened last year in the debate in this House I want to make a most important quotation. The House should be reminded of an admission, a very important admission, to the charge made here that the grading and regrading were being manipulated for specific purposes. The General Manager says on page 7 of his report—

As I have said, grading and regrading take place for a specific purpose. The correct course followed in the public service and also in the Railway service, is to investigate the exact value of a particular post. One has to enquire, when a post is graded and a specific salary attached to it, how much work is involved in that post, what is the nature of the work and what responsibility rests on the official occupying the post. In other words, so far as grading and regrading are concerned one has to consider the merits of the post and not the individual occupying the post. One has to consider the merits of the post and not of the individual. It becomes necessary sometimes to regrade a post. I admit that it becomes necessary sometimes to regrade a post, because there is a change in the administration or because there is more work attached to a post or the nature of the work is altered. There has to be regrading, therefore, from time to time. I accept that. I also accept the fact that promotions sometimes have to be made in the public service over the heads of senior officials, because one wants to use the services of the most competent official. An official’s ability has to be taken into consideration and not only his seniority. I admit that but while conceding that point I say that if a Minister or if the General Manager of Railways or the Public Service Commission decides to promote someone over the heads of others, there should be no manipulation in the grading and regrading of posts, but the individual should be prompted on his merits, and the Minister and General Manager of Railways should take the responsibility for it. That is the right way to do it, but what is going on in the Railway Administration today? I can best describe it by saying that the “lift” system is in operation. The lifts go up and down in the Railways to fetch favourites from down below. The Minister has not got the courage to defend the system on its merits, but the lift is sent to fetch people from down below and to bring them higher up. What does it mean? Manipulation, a departure from and a breaking down of the healthy system in force in the Public Service, a departure from the rule to grade posts according to the merits of the post and not according to the individual. It also means that the Minister does certain things but has not got the courage to give the true reasons for doing those things, and he does not accept the responsibility for the promotion of certain people over the heads of others, and he gives false reasons for such promotions. I say that it is a dangerous and bad system. And it opens the door to the gravest abuses. It is the first step which a corrupt Administration will take to achieve its object. Having sketched the background now, I want to come to one specific case which I want to mention and in this connection I also want to mention the name of the person concerned. I don’t want to go into Mr. Chittenden’s case, which was discussed fully last year. All I can say is that it is generally admitted that Mr. Chittenden’s promotion was a hopeless failure, and that fact fully confirms the criticism which we levelled against this system. It is admitted that Mr. Chittenden is not suited to the post and was not fit for the high promotion he received. That criticism is backed up not by Afrikaans-speaking people only but it is also admitted by English-speaking people—prominent English-speaking people, even in the business world. I even feel that the Minister and the General Manager of Railways have been impressed by that view, and that is why they have now made a fresh attempt to do the same thing again with someone else—again to promote someone else over the heads of others, so that when the General Manager resigns, someone else will be appointed in his place. Well that is Mr. Marshall Clark. A post was recently created for him, a new post, which did not exist before—the post of Chief Technical Officer, Reconstruction. It is a Cabinet appointment and he has to advise the Cabinet. The Minister of Railways and the Cabinet are concerned in this matter and that is all the more reason for discussing the matter now. I understand that fully a year ago the Minister of Railways in a Press interview intimated that great things were in store for Mr. Marshall Clark. Let me indicate the various steps that were taken in regard to him. In 1921 he joined the Service as a learner engineer; so he has not been in the Service very long. In 1939 when the present Minister took up his portfolio, Mr. Marshall Clark became Section Engineer, Witwatersrand New Works, under the control of the Chief Civil Engineer. The maximum salary attached to this post at that time was £1,050. In 1939 when the Minister took office Mr. Clark held that post, the maximum salary of which was £1,050, but he had not yet reached the maximum. His salary was roundabout £1,000. In 1941, two years later, he was appointed Divisional Engineer, Natal Division, and he jumped from £1,000 to £1,200. But the strange thing is this, that although he was appointed to that position he never occupied it. He was in Palestine at the time, building railways. Then in 1941 a post was created on paper—a post which only existed on paper but hot in practice, and he was appointed to that post under the Chief Civil Engineer—he was appointed as Inspection Engineer of New. Works. But he did not occupy that post, because there was no such post. It only existed on paper. In 1942 he was again promoted to Chief Officer, Works and Lands. He jumped up from £1,200 to £1,400. In 1943 he was back in the Union and he was transferred to Cape Town to take up a newly created post, namely, that of Acting Controller of Shipping Repairs. Shortly after he took up that position, however, it became clear that Mr. Chittenden was a failure. Now, as Mr. Hoffe will be resigning in October next year, and as Mr. Chittenden has turned out a failure, something has to be done quickly. [Time limit extended.] I thank the House for granting me this concession. I was saying that as Mr. Chittenden had proved a failure, and as Mr. Hoffe has to resign next year, something has to be done quickly. Now Mr. Clark’s real post, which in the meantime had been occupied by somebody else—he himself had been acting in Cape Town in a newly created post—was raised from £1,400 to £1,600. He was now in the regraded post which had been raised by £200, and in November, 1942, he got a further rise. He only served one month in this regraded post. He had not even completed his probationary period of three months in the regraded post when he was again promoted and the post of Chief Technical Officer, Reconstruction, was created for him. He jumped from £1,000 to £1,200 and after that to £1,600, and he has now gone up to £2,000. In four years he has gone up from £1,000 to £2,000. His salary has been doubled.

The elevator has done the work.

Yes, he did not jump. He was called for by the lift, by the elevator, and he was taken to nearly the top-storey for a special purpose. He has gone over the heads of three senior divisional superintendents and two of them are Afrikaans-speaking; he has gone over the heads of four other divisional superintendents and two of them are Afrikaans-speaking. He has gone over the heads of a number of other senior officials with competent engineers under them, who also used to be his seniors. It appears that in that short space of time he jumped over the heads of 28 senior officials. Well, this “super-man” has to get past another ten officials before October next year to make it possible for him to take Mr. Hoffe’s place. It will be interesting to know how far and along what course, and how fast the elevator is going to work, and where it is going to take him in that space of time. In the meantime I understand that something has occurred in the Civil Engineer’s Department which certainly is not to the benefit of the Railways. The Chief Civil Engineer, in consequence of the creation of these new posts has been relieved of part of his work. The Assistant Chief Civil Engineer who is Afrikaans-speaking, has become practically redundant. The administrative unit, so far as the Engineers’ division is concerned, has in consequence been disturbed. It is bad administration. All this has been done for the purpose of getting one individual into the lift, into the elevator, an individual who, so far as his experience of the Railway Service is concerned, has been employed almost exclusively on construction work. We shall now be told that he has also gone over the heads of English-speaking senior officials. Well, let us analyse that. Nearly every one of those English officials will have to resign shortly after Mr. Hoffe resigns in October next year, and those who are left, to whom that objection does not apply, are principally Afrikaans-speaking senior officials. We shall be told that he has been promoted not only over the heads of Afrikaans-speaking senior officials, but over the heads of English-speaking officials, and that is why I want to point out that eleven of the English-speaking officials will have to resign on reaching the age limit, within two years, and four others within three years. It is self evident that they could not be appointed to the position of General Manager of Railways because it would mean that they would have to resign on reaching the age limit very shortly after their appointment. There are many other senior officials over whose heads he has been promoted, men who occupy posts which are too highly specialised to be considered. The one is a medical man who has had to deal with health matters only. The other is a man who has only served in an accounting position, and another one has only served in an engineering capacity. Another one was in an electrical technical post. All these are posts too highly specialised for the people occupying them to be appointed to the position of General Manager, where one requires a good practical knowledge of all the divisions in the Railway Service. Last year in reply to a similar debate we were told that Railway servants who felt aggrieved could appeal to the Railway Board. They have a right to complain and may in that way receive justice. They can appeal to the Railway Board, but hon. members should remember that the Minister is Chairman of the Railway Board and as this is a Cabinet appointment, and if objections are raised, and legitimate complaints, those complaints have to be passed on to the Cabinet. Now, I ask this House whether the Cabinet will give a decision against the Minister on an appeal or on a complaint against an appointment for which the Minister is jointly responsible? It is most unlikely. In those circumstances I say that no official will even take the trouble, no matter how unfairly he has been done by, to appeal to the Railway Board.

And who is the Railway Board?

Well, I thought I should bring this matter before the House by way of the amendment I have proposed and to ask the House and the Government—don’t just accept our word, but appoint a commission and let us go thoroughly into this question in the interest of Parliament, in the interest of the Minister himself and in the interest of the country, and also in the interest of the relations between the races of this country; let us have this whole matter enquired into, so that grievances of this nature will once and for all be done away with in this country. I move.

I wish to second the amendment of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Last year we made an urgent appeal to the Hon. the Minister of Railways to have justice done to the Railway officials. On that occasion we did not make any vague charge but gave specific instances of gross injustice having been done to certain Afrikaans-speaking officials in the Service. We showed how certain officials, by manipulation and regrading of posts, had been improperly promoted over the heads of people who were their seniors. We thought the Railway Administration would take notice of our request and would have put an end to this unjust treatment of certain officials. On the contrary, it now appears that they have continued with their practice, as in the case mentioned here by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan). The Railway Administration is simply carrying on its shameless policy of discrimination in the Railway service, and that being so it is our duty once again to record our emphatic protests against the policy which is pursued by the Railway Administration. That policy is causing great dissatisfaction in the Railways. There are officials there who have had years of service, men who in the course of years have faithfully taken the prescribed Railway examinations, the one after the other; they are capable officials in the Rail way service today, and they now have to see juniors, inexperienced men, being promoted over their heads and put into higher positions. This sort of thing creates a spirit of bitterness and grievance among officials, and that being so it is our duty to emphasise what has happened on the Railways. The Railway Administration is the biggest employer of labour in the country. It employs almost 100,000 officials and officers and its wage and salary cheque amounts to close on £20,000,000 per year. That being the case it is of the utmost importance that, so far as the Railways are concerned, promotions shall only be made on the basis of service and ability in the Railways, The General Manager in his annual report made a bitter attack on this side of the House because we had mentioned the names of certain officials in this House. We mentioned these names because that was the only way we could put the position before the House. We did not want to make any vague charges, but wanted to show specifically who were the people who had received promotion to which they were not entitled. The General Manager tried to give some explanation and tried to show why those promotions were made. His explanation amounted to this: an official got to the maximum of his grade; when he was at that maximum a vacancy occurred in another branch of the service and that senior official was entitled to promotion to that other branch of the service, because he was the senior official, but the Administration was anxious to keep him where he was. Perhaps he was specially suited for the post he was occupying, he knew the work well, and that is why they preferred to give him an increase in his post rather than transfer him to another post. That explanation by the General Manager is quite acceptable. But we should remember that that explanation was given in respect of the instances which we mentioned in this House. Now, let us take one of those instances and see how that explanation applies to it. We have three exploitation superintendents who are on the same status and in the same grade, namely those of Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg. In Johannesburg the occupant of the post was a certain Mr. Carter. The Administration regrades his post from £1,200 to £1,400. The posts in Cape Town and Durban remain at £1,200. The General Manager’s explanation is that the man’s services were indispensable in that post, and that was the reason why that step was taken. He was a senior official and he was entitled to promotion. He had reached his maximum, but instead of promoting him to another post his salary was raised to £1,400. Well, that is what was done in this instance, but it was strange that Mr. Carter did not occupy that post for a single day—that is to say the post into which according to the General Manager’s theory he had been deliberately placed because he was so particularly suited for that post, and because he was entitled to his promotion. He did not hold that post for a single day. The Minister gave a different explanation here. He said that the post in Cape Town and Durban was not as important as that in Johannesburg because the Railway System there was more extensive, and because the post carried a greater responsibility—that was why it was put up to £1,400. That was the Minister’s explanation, but now we find that after the post in Johannesburg was raised to £1,400 an inexperienced junior official, Mr. Thiel, was appointed to that post. We are told that that post is more important than it is in Durban and Cape Town, yet a junior is appointed to act in that position on the Witwatersrand, despite the fact that this particular post is regarded as being of the utmost importance. Now, that is the explanation given by the Railway Administration and by the Minister in this House. Those are the lame arguments they put before us to try and convince us. But let hon. members realise what the real object was. If that post had remained at £1,200 it would have meant that an Afrikaans-speaking official would have had to be appointed. His successor would also have been an Afrikaans-speaking official, and the next one to succeed would also have been Afrikaans-speaking. It would have meant that a whole series of Afrikaans-speaking officials would have been promoted, and the Administration simply wanted to stop the promotion of those Afrikaans officials; they had to be blocked, and the only way to do so was to raise the salaries attaching to the posts. I say it is a crying shame to find such discrimination taking place in our Railway service in South Africa. We want the Railway service to be placed above racial considerations. We want to give the senior officials what they are entitled to, but if Afrikaans-speaking officials are discriminated against in this way then it is our duty to get up here and protest emphatically against this shameless policy which is being carried out on the Railways. Now, I want to say something further in regard to the explanation given by the General Manager about the posts which have been reduced. There was an opening for an inspection engineer carrying a salary of £1,600. The person who should have been appointed was an Afrikaans-speaking man and he was recommended by the Chief of the Division, the only man able to judge who was the most suitable person for the appointment. But the Railway Administration stepped in and reduced the post to £1,400. And what happened? A junior engineer was selected and was given the post. I asked the Minister in the House why that was done, and the reply was that they were anxious to have a wider choice. In other words, their opinion was that this Afrikaans-speaking official was not sufficiently competent and that one of the juniors would be more competent to fill this special post. And what happened after that? A junior engineer was appointed to the post at a salary of £1,200 to £1,400. He occupied that post for ten weeks and was thereupon transferred to an administrative post where the salary was £1,600. He has now become senior to the Afrikaans-speaking official and he has been unjustly promoted over the heads of certain other people. The Minister’s explanation is that he particularly wanted such an official in that post; thus he appointed a junior engineer to the post of inspection engineer, and a short while after he transferred that same man into an administrative post, giving him an increased salary. Now, that is an example of the sort of thing we get on the Railways. We can mention case after case where the same sort of thing has happened on the Railways, and now this question arises. Why do we have this manipulation of posts to get certain people into certain positions? The General Manager in his report explains why it is done, and I have already shown the hopelessness of his arguments. A few years ago, however, certain Minutes were quoted in this House regarding a conference which the General Manager had with his Divisional Managers and other highly placed officials in the Railways. In those official Minutes it is specifically stated that the General Manager, when addressing those present, said: “Look here, we must see to it that in the key positions in the Railways we shall have people who are not disloyal. Disloyal people must be got out of those key positions.” He further said that it was difficult to determine which people should be got out of those jobs, but if an official is suspected of being disloyal—and, of course, that means that he has to be loyal to hon. members opposite—they must keep him out of any key position. That simply means that they only want those officials there who contribute to war funds and stand for the policy of seeing the war through. If an English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking official refuses to associate himself with those things, but if he gives all his attention to his work and does so faithfully and loyally, then he is suspected of being disloyal and the Gestapo on the Railways are used to apply restrictions to him, and if necessary to chuck him out of his job. The General Manager states that key positions must be occupied by competent men, but at this secret conference he emphasised that disloyal people must be kept out of key positions, and we have seen how far that policy has been carried on the Railways. I have already mentioned the case of a competent official on the Railways who was interned. The internment authorities released him because there was no case against him, but because of certain information given to the Railway authorities the Railway police again apprehended him, but the internment authorities again released him because therewere no complaints against him. The Railway Administration thereupon proceeded to kick him out. The official instituted a claim for £2,000 against the Railways. The Railway Administration took legal advice and simply paid him the £2,000 together with all costs. They had to take that official back into their service. Can we find any better example of victimisation, of persecution, of certain officials in the Railway Service? This is one of the biggest scandals one could have—but that is the way certain officials in the Railway Service were dealt with. I want to appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition so that this matter may be thoroughly investigated. Let us enquire whether we are making any false charges, and whether the Minister is justified in the attitude he is adopting. We notice that since 1939 we have had a “Blitzkrieg” of promotions on the Railways. The particular talents of these officials were not discovered before, but in 1939 they were suddenly discovered by the General Manager. If was then that he found out that there was a Brains Trust in the Railway Service, which he had known nothing about before. He had occupied a high position in the Railways, as Chief of the Staff Division, but in those days neither he nor Mr. Watermeyer knew anything about this Brains Trust. Since 1939, however, those people were discovered, and we have seen the speedy promotion they have made, and the way they have been promoted. Now, I want to know from the Minister whether he really believes that Mr. Watermeyer deliberately kept these people back all those years if they were so clever? Why did not things go the same way in the years that he was General Manager? Why have we suddenly found that since 1940, when the present General Manager took over, these improper promotions of officials have become the order of the day? I want to say here that the Railway Service is seething with discontent. They dare not do anything. One senior official wrote a letter to the General Manager. That man is a S.A. Party man and a man who wants to see the war through, but he felt it his duty on behalf of the Afrikaans-speaking people to lodge a protest against the favouritism shown to the English-speaking officials. He was rapped over the knuckles and he was told to withdraw what he had said, and he had to withdraw, but he was of opinion that there was discrimination on racial grounds. This man was not a Nationalist but a follower of hon. members opposite. He was a man who sympathised with the Afrikaans-speaking people in regard to the injustice done to them on the Railways. Now let me say this—the Minister issued a challenge last year. He asked us to give him the name of one official who was unilingual whom he had promoted on the Railways. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) asked the Minister a question the other day and it appeared from the reply that 60 unilingual people were promoted. I issue that challenge to the Minister. A few years ago we had an instance of examination questions for the Afrikaans examinations in Durban being lost, and those questions were spread all over South Africa.

They were sold.

Yes, there was a business in those questions and this thing happened with the silent approval of prominent officials in the Service. Let me mention one instance. A certain stationmaster reported to his Divisional Manager that he had been offered such a list of questions for a couple of pounds. He was told to get those questions and have the answers written down by somebody, and then he could hand them in when writing the examination and a few months later he would get his certificate, showing that he was properly bilingual and could speak Afrikaans fluently. Well, something had to be done then. I may say that some people were instructed to go and take a statement from that stationmaster, and a witness was present. But the stationmaster was transferred to Durban where he was promoted to a higher post, and nothing further was heard of the case. This fraud developed to such an extent that an English-speaking official, feeling nauseated by what had happened, the night before the Afrikaans examination, took the list of questions and posted it on the Notice Board in the workshops in Durban. Well, that forced the Administration to take some step. They wired to Johannesburg and the examination was cancelled. A detective was sent to make an investigation and I am told that he collected no fewer than 80 sets of these questions from people who had secured them illegally with a view to passing their examination in that way, and among the names of these people were those of highly placed Railway officials, but that scandal was suppressed and nobody ever heard any more about it. There are highly placed officials today who cannot speak a single word of Afrikaans, but who are duly certified as being bilingual. If anybody addresses them in Afrikaans they do not know what one is talking about. Now I want to issue this challenge to the Minister. I am prepared to give him five names of highly placed Railway officials and if they can pass the test laid down in circular No. 2995 regarding bilingualism I shall give up my seat in Parliament and leave this House.

I feel, Sir, that the hon. the Minister need lose no sleep as a result of the introduction of this amendment by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. As far as promotions on the Railways are concerned, the policy might be defined as to whether promotion ought to be made on seniority or suitability or both. But in this connection, Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the Opposition has introduced this amendment simply because an English-speaking employee, Mr. Clark, has received what they term somewhat rapid promotion. I wonder if they would have called for this select committee or special committee of Parliament to investigate the position if it had been a Mr. Malan instead of a Mr. Clark. One very much regrets that they have dragged the racial question into our Railway Administration. It is very regrettable and I can only say this, that we of the English-speaking section, supported by the railwaymen, very often feel that if anything, the English-speaking section of the Railway employees are at a disadvantage as against the Afrikaans-speaking section. That is happening today, as we know, in respect of certain Railway employees who are away on active service. Although it was definitely laid down that these men on active service would be considered in connection with all matters appertaining to promotion, there have been cases where their claims have been overlooked. But we do not feel that this is a question on which we should call for a special committee of investigation. The seconder of the amendment, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) tells us that the Railways are seething with discontent, that all railwaymen are up in arms against the Railway Administration and the Government. If that is so, it is rather a significant fact that in this hon. House every Railway centre controlled by the Railway vote is represented on the Government benches. That is rather a significant fact. So I feel that if there is this wide discontent it is significant that Railwaymen have supported the Government. I wish to deal with one or two other matters. I take it that the amendment will be dealt with by the Minister in his reply. This is the first occasion on which the Railway Administration has appeared before us, as it were, under the Ministry of Transport. We should congratulate the Minister on his appointment. It is a Ministry created as a result of agitation in the country for the formation of this Ministry, in order to attain maximum efficiency in the control and management of our greatest transport undertaking, and what I feel more than that, it is a Ministry created in order to remove monopolies, and to ensure, as far as possible, that each branch of our transport, rail, sea, air and road, would at all times receive its legitimate traffic. During the last Session of Parliament we on this side of the House very strongly advocated the creation of this Ministry, and today I would like to go a stage further, if I may, and urge upon the Minister the urgency, and shall I say the necessity of the appointment and establishment of a transport board. We quite appreciate that the Railways as our greatest transportation undertaking, will very naturally convey a far greater volume of our traffic than the other carriers, but our aim should be to co-ordinate all forms of traffic, and so in that way see to it that each branch will receive its legitimate traffic, and that each section of our transport is under direct control. To my way of thinking this can only be brought about by the establishment or appointment of a transport board, a board representing all the interests concerned—the Railways, the Central Road Transportation Board, the Shipping Board, the Civil Air Board, agriculture, mining, industry; and let it be a board that will be able to advise the Minister from time to time on all matters appertaining to transport, and so bring about the very efficient economic and rapid transport of all types of goods, passengers and livestock. I trust that this matter, the appointment of such a Board, will receive in the very near future the very earnest and serious consideration of the hon. the Minister. Now may I just say a word or two with regard to postwar air transport. Prior to the war the Railway Administration was very clearly able to demonstrate the value of air transport, not only within the Union but as a means of linking the Union of South Africa to our neighbouring territories, and although we are all today inclined to speak rather glibly about post-war reconstruction and post-war development, one wonders whether we appreciate sufficiently the very vital part air transport will play in bringing about this desired development and the establishment of this new world order. After this war there is no doubt but that South Africa will have to lift its wings, as it were, and fly, and I think it will be dangerous if we were to leave the matter in abeyance till after the war. Immediately hostilities have ceased one will find every country in the world jockeying for position and commercial domination, and if we by that time have not our claims to the various strategic air routes very definitely staked, it might be possible that we will be left at the post. The selection of our strategic air routes and bases is a matter of vital importance. We must remember that so far as our air bases are concerned, those to be established in this country, that around these bases, an entirely new mode of living will come into being. You will have around these air bases, industry and commerce established just as in the olden days they were inclined to establish themselves around our seaports and our chief railway centres. And, Sir, the question of the selection of these air bases is a matter, as I have said, of vital importance; and one, I hope, that the department or the administration has already taken in hand. There is no reason at all why in the establishment of what I might call the Commonwealth air transport scheme, South Africa should not play a leading role. Owing to our strategic position there is no doubt, to my mind, that South Africa is destined to play a very important and possibly a leading part. I do trust that this matter is already engaging, or at any rate that it will in the near future engage the attention of the administration, and not be left until after the war, to the detriment of our country. We have heard a good deal of criticism, both this morning in the House and I may say during the election period in the country, unwarranted criticism of our Railway Administration; and Sir, I feel that I should like to take this opportunity just for a moment or two of referring to the very fine war effort of our South African Railways. I feel that our war effort has been so magnificent that it almost precludes criticism. Nevertheless I feel I am justified in drawing the attention of this hon. House and of the country to the magnificent war effort, of our South African Railways. I feel I can go as far as to say this; had it not been for the vast resources of our South African Railways, coupled with the skill, enthusiasm and loyalty of our railwaymen, South Africa’s war effort would not have succeeded as it has done.

When business was suspended I was attempting to demonstrate to the hon. House the very valuable service that had been rendered to the country by the Railways as far as our war effort was concerned, and I went so far as to say that had it not been for the vast resources of our South African Railways, coupled with the enthusiasm and loyalty of our very splendid railway artisans, South Africa’s war effort would not have succeed as it has. Sir, I am very disappointed and I might say very surprised, to find that although the hon. the Leader of the Opposition kept the House occupied for more than 40 minutes this morning, he did not see fit on one occasion to offer a single word of praise or appreciation to the Railway Administration, or to the very excellent railwaymen who have done so much materially towards our country’s war effort. A few months ago numerous members of the Opposition were telling our railwaymen what wonderful fellows they were; they were telling our railwaymen how much they intended doing for them; and yet today when the opportunity, the first opportunity arises, not one single word of appreciation is given to the Railways. No wonder that every Railway constituency in this country is represented by an hon. member on this side of the House. Furthermore, as far as the Railways’ war effort is concerned, I think I might refer to the fact that out of approximately 80,000 European employees the Railways have released approximately 14,000 men for active service. The Railway Administration today is, as we know, contributing a sum of no less than £1,000,000 annually in order to make up the difference between the civil and military pay of its railwaymen, men who are serving in all theatres of war, men who have served and are serving with distinction. I specially would refer to the very excellent work carried out by our Railway construction companies in the Middle East, an invaluable work that has contributed very materially to the success of the various campaigns. We feel, too, that we must not forget our railway engineering companies, our various railway construction companies, and last but not least our South African Railway and Harbour tank repair shops and staffs. These men in all theatres of war have carried out and rendered service that is a credit not only to themselves, but to the country. Apart from the actual railwaymen on service, we have also a tale to tell of the railwaymen who have been kept behind in our various Railway workshops. These men, and I might say, our Railway workshops, have proved to be the backbone of South Africa’s munition industry. We find in our Railway mechanical workshops today armoured cars being manufactured. We find that mortars, gun sights, aeroplane hangars and numerous other munition items are being manufactured by our railwaymen, and if one takes the trouble to study the statistics you will find, Sir, that today at cost—the Railway Administration charge the Defence Department actually cost price—the work carried out in the mechanical workshops of the Railways is valued at about £2,500,000. We find, too, that in our Railway electrical workshops the work done for the Defence Department, namely in the manufacture of precision instruments, amounts to date to over £250,000. We find in addition to that that in our road motor transport workshops, work mainly in the welding of service bodies has been completed at a cost to date of approximately £200,000. In addition to this, we find that at our various ports the Railway mechanical shops have undertaken very important and very urgent ship repair work, and that to date the cost amounts to just over £750,000; we find, too, that as a contribution to this country’s war effort the Railway Administration has agreed to concessions to the Defence Department in respect of Railway fares, goods traffic and parcel carriage to the extent to date of approximately £6,000,000. That, Mr. Speaker, is a short story very briefly told of the magnificent war effort of our South African Railways, and as far as our Railway workshops are concerned. Apart from that, we are very pleased to hear that the Administration has now undertaken a guarantee that every Railway official who proceeded on active service shall be re-employed by the Railway Administration, and in addition to that it has undertaken that approximately 2,500 discharged soldiers—this is by way of the Railway’s contribution towards relieving the post-war unemployment problem—to employ at least 2,500 discharged soldiers in the various branches of the Railway service. And it has gone a step further. I should like to congratulate the Administration and the hon. the Minister on the establishment of the Central Training Institute at Kaalfontein. The Railway Administration has undertaken that not only will these men be given employment but prior to that time they will actually be taught how to do the work. That institute will, I hope, in time come to be looked upon as the railwayman’s university in this country. There the railwaymen will have the opportunity of being instructed in various branches of the Railway service, and I feel that it is an institute that the railwaymen will thoroughly appreciate, and an institute that will certainly benefit the Administration itself. Now I have only been able very briefly to sketch the activities of the Railway Administration so far as our war effort is concerned, but I feel I have every hon. member of this House with me, when I offer my congratulations not only to the Minister but to the General Manager of Railways, and his excellent staff, on the valuable services that have been rendered. Just before concluding I should like to deal with one other matter of general policy, that is in connection with our post-war Railway workshop development. I think that this war has shown us what our Railway workshops and what our Railway artisan is capable of doing. During the war the Railway artisan has been called upon to execute most intricate work without any special training at all, and he has done it most efficiently, and so we all look forward to the time when our Railway workshops throughout the country will be in a position to manufacture all our Railway requirements, including locomotives, and the Committee which was appointed a year ago to investigate this whole position have, I understand, submitted their report. It has not been tabled and the contents are not known to us, but I am quite certain that that Committee has recommended very wide and far-reaching Railway workshop expansion, and I can only trust that the Minister and the Administration will see to it that the recommendations of that Committee are given effect to with the least possible delay. As far as my own constituency is concerned I quite realise that the question of our Railway workshop expansion is bound up to a certain extent with the question of our new Railway station, but in that connection I can only assure the Administration that no matter what is required it will secure the very hearty and loyal co-operation of the Municipality of Uitenhage. I hope that the expansion of our Railway works not only at my centre but throughout the country will be put in hand at the earliest possible date. Lastly, might I just add a word on behalf of those very loyal, tried old servants of the Administration, our Railway pensioners? These tried, loyal old servants today are finding it very difficult to make ends meet, and I would appeal to the Minister to use his influence with the Minister of Finance in order to ensure that every Railway pensioner in this country irrespective of the amount of his pension, shall receive, and shall be entitled to receive a cost-of-living allowance.

It is very difficult to appreciate the attitude of some hon. members in this House—it is very difficult for us to understand them if they cannot look at a matter from an unprejudiced point of view. The hon. member who has just sat down was an example. He made a charge against this side of the House, especially against the Leader of the Opposition, and his charge was that this side of the House had failed to express its appreciation of the magnificent war effort of the Railways and of the Railway officials. I ask in heaven’s name how does the hon. member look at the whole position? He has been in this House for years and he does not yet know that this side is opposed to the war. Does he now expect us to pay a tribute to the Railways for their magnificent war effort?

It is no use trying to get any appreciation from hon. members over there.

The hon. member is a newcomer.

Yes, I am.

Well, the hon. member should be sensible. If I were to show appreciation of the things hon. members want me to show appreciation of.…

If you did you would be on the right course.

Yes; I would be as much on the right course as he is—of running from one party to the other. If he is a deserter, I only want to tell him that I am not, and I hope that in future he will not talk out of turn. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley) does not yet realise what the issue is between us on this side and members on the other side of the House. No, we on this side always show our appreciation of the work done by the railway people for the Railways and for this country, and that is why we are taking up the cause of the railwaymen who have been unjustly treated. The hon. member said a few other strange things; he said among other things that the English-speaking people on the Railways feel that they are the ones who are being unjustly treated, and as an instance he mentions those who have gone on active service. When it suits my hon. friend over there they go running about the platteland telling people that more than 50 per cent. of the soldiers are Afrikaans-speaking.

They say 75 per cent.

But this morning, if one listened to the hon. member, one would swear that only English-speaking people went on active service. Another peculiar thing is this, he asks whether we are not aware of the fact that in spite of our taking up the cudgels on behalf of the Railway people all the seats consisting principally of Railway people are being represented by members on the Government side. Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Uitenhage, so far as this question is concerned, knows very little about our attitude. Let me mention a few instances. Is he familiar with constituencies in the Transvaal, constituencies like Wonderboom and Westdene where there are more Railway workers than there are in his own constituency? Does he know anything about a seat such as Albert-Colesberg? Does he know anything about a seat such as Bloemfontein District? But let me come to his own constituency. What right has he to say that he represents the majority of the Railway people in his constituency? His majority was 527, and in his constituency there are 480 coloured votes and 516 soldiers. Consequently, if we have to judge by the Railway vote, the hon. member would never have had the privilege of being here. He tried to stand up for the Minister of Railways here. He took it upon himself to explain the policy of the Railways as the Minister had failed to do so. He further said that the Minister need not spend any sleepless nights over what this side of the House had said. I think the Minister of Railways will say: “Save me from my friends.” If the Minister of Railways is honest—and I think he is honest—then it is his bounden duty to spend many sleepless nights thinking of a way to put an end to the scandalous conditions of affairs prevailing in the Railways, as described here today. If he does his duty he will not shut his ears and his eyes to this injustice in the Railway Service, and he will put the matter right so that in future he will not have to spend any sleepless night. I want to say that a condition of affairs was disclosed here this morning, and also disclosed last year, which shows that the state of affairs prevailing on the Railways is very definitely rotten, and should be investigated to the very bottom. In this connection I want to start by referring to the General Manager of Railways. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the fact that the General Manager of Railways has placed himself in the position of a Minister by replying to speeches made in this House. I am not going to say any more about, that. So far as that aspect of the matter is concerned my Leader has adequately dealt with that and has settled with the General Manager of Railways, but I want to deal with another aspect. The General Manager of Railways has lately been in the habit, month after month, of making declarations of policy on behalf of the Railways. In the Transvaal one can hardly ever take up an English paper without finding a declaration of policy by the General Manager of Railways on some subject or other. He makes declarations and statements on all kinds of matters. The Minister keeps silent and the General Manager announces the policy in South Africa. I hope the Minister has not accepted the advice of the hon. member for Uitenhage in advance, but that he will keep awake and realise that what is going on constitutes a very unhealthy condition of affairs, and that it is not the duty of the General Manager of Railways, however highly placed an official he may be, to make statements of policy on behalf of the Government. That is the Minister’s job, and it is not the job of any General Manager or of any official. I hope the Minister will give that official a little time to make him realise what his duty is and what is not his duty. I now come back to the injustice done to Afrikaans-speaking people on the Railways. I want to put certain questions to the Minister and I hope he will give me the requisite information. Last year, among other cases, we raised the case of Dr. Van Abo. The Minister admitted that Dr. Van Abo was one of the cleverest engineers in the service and he promised that he would give the matter his personal attention and would go into the complaints raised by us in regard to the injustice done to Dr. Van Abo. I should like him to tell us what has been done. I hope he will not come and tell us that Dr. Van Abo’s salary has been raised. Dr. Van Abo has been placed in a position where he can make no further progress, and numerous junior officials, among them Mr. Clark, are being promoted over his head, one after another. We were told today how Mr. Clark was promoted and we were told of the progress made by him in the course of a very few years. One official after another is promoted over Dr. Van Abo, although many of them five or six years ago were very much junior to him in the service. I want to know whether the Minister has carried out his promise, not merely so far as this official’s salary is concerned, but whether he has also seen to it that the road for further promotion in the service is no longer closed to him as it was in the past. In regard to the injustice done to this official, it has been said here that these people have the right to appeal to the Railway Board. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to put the Railway Board under the microscope. The Railway Board, when it was constituted at the time of Union, was a very important body. Let me quote what Clause 126 of the Act of Union says—

The Constitution further provides that the Commissioners shall occupy their posts for five years, and the Board was considered to be so important that the Minister or the Government, if they had dismissed one of its members, must report the fact within a week to both Houses of Parliament. I want to emphasise that in terms of the Act of Union the control and management of the Railways is entrusted to the Railway Board. That shows the importance attached to the Railway Board. In 1916 the functions of the Railway Board were further defined, and instead of the whole policy being placed under the Railway Board and in the hands of the Railway Board, a change was made in the sentence contained in Clause 2 of Act No. 17 of 1916. In that clause the functions of the Board are defined. As a result of that the Board would largely act in an advisory capacity, but in spite of that the Board is in accordance with the original idea, a most important body. Now I want to ask this: Does an appeal to the Railway Board mean anything, especially if such an appeal comes from a high official? The reason why I ask is this: if any important change is made in the salaries, status or the grading of posts in the Railway service, the matter is primarily discussed by the Railway Board. We may take it for granted that if any change takes place in connection with the salary of a highly placed official, or if there is any change in regard to the allocation of posts, the matter has been discussed in advance by the Railway Board; the Minister will have discussed the subject with the Railway Board. What is the use then of the official concerned afterwards to go to the self same people as a Court of Appeal? It is useless. It is no use telling those people that in those circumstances they can go to the Railway Board. Now let me take the Railway Board as it is. Is it a body in which a Railway official apart from the Minister himself can have any confidence? First of all we have Mr. Bates who used to be a member of this House. He is a very charming man. Nobody would doubt his integrity, but has he got the ability and the qualifications for that high position? He has comparatively few qualifications fitting him for the post.

He is a Railway man.

Yes; but even taking the work he did on the Railways—what knowledge did that give him of Railway administration? None whatever.

He is a good man.

Yes, I know he is a good man, but I am only dealing with his ability now. As an individual he is a good man, but from the very nature of things we cannot expect him to have that knowledge of Railway matters which is so highly necessary in a post of this kind. No one knowing Mr. Bates will have any doubt on that point. All who know him realise that he is a charming, nice little fellow, but that’s where it ends. Then, recently, a certain Mr. Fourie was appointed. He is a comparatively young man. What are his qualifications? If we look at the Act of Union we find that the control and management of the Railways are entrusted to the Railway Board and we must assume that only highly placed men with a knowledge of affairs and more particularly with a knowledge of the Railways should be appointed as members of the Board.

What about Mr. Albert Kuyt?

I am quite prepared to compare the old Board with the present Board, but I am dealing with Mr. Fourie. Is there a single member in this House who unblushingly can say that Mr. Fourie has the qualifications for that post? Who knows the man? He is a comparatively young man who knows nothing whatsoever about business; he comes from Harrismith, and on two successive occasions he fell out when there was an election. He was a candidate for the United Party at the recent Parliamentary Elections, and after that he was a candidate for the Provincial Council. This is the first time anyone has ever heard of him. If the fact that he was defeated for the Provincial Council is a qualification for membership of the Railway Board, then how many people are not there in South Africa who were defeated, and who could have been considered for membership of that Board? But what does he know about Railways?

What about Whiteside?

I have already told the hon. member over there that I would not taken any notice of him and I shall be glad if he will keep quiet. Then we come to Mr. Louis Esselen; who is he?

He is a first class chap.

He is a party organiser. He is a first class party organiser, but that is his only qualification. Until recently Mr. Louis Esselen was the chief organiser of the United Party and he knows nothing about the Railways. He has no knowledge whatever of general affairs. He is a good party organiser, and I contend that in spite of his appointment to the Railway Board he is in actual fact still chief organiser of the S.A. Party.

That’s a good qualification.

The hon. member admits that Mr. Esselen’s only qualification is that he is chief organiser of the South African Party. He is the man behind the scenes, the power behind the throne. Mr. Oosthuizen is apparently only the organiser. The man behind the scenes is still Mr. Louis Esselen. He is the chief organiser of the S.A. Party and a member of the Railway Board. Well, this Railway Board consists of Messrs. Esselen, Fourie and Bates, so I ask whether any Afrikaner who has been unjustly treated will have the pluck to appeal to that body? In view of the composition of the Railway Board it is useless for members of the Railway staff to appeal to the Board for the simple reason that the Railway. Board is no longer there to protect the country or to serve the Railways, it is there to serve the United Party, alias the S.A. Party. Now I come to other matters which I brought to the Minister’s notice last year. I am referring to those unfortunate people who have to serve in the Karrier Cobs. I very earnestly brought the matter to his notice last year, and I drew his attention to the fact that numbers of those people suffered severely as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning. Let me quote what the Minister promised us at the time—

In spite of the fact that the Railway Administration was aware of the fact that what I quoted was a quotation from a certificate given by the Railway Sick Fund doctors who treated those people, and who stated that the poisoning had been caused by carbon monoxide—notwithstanding that, the Minister made the statement that the experts who had investigated the matter declared that those people were not suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning. I think the Minister will support me if I say today that they did suffer from carbon monoxide poisoning, and I hope he and the Administration have come to realise that the position of these persons is most unfortunate, and that they are being exposed to work which seriously affects their health. I should like to know what he is going to do in regard to the position prevailing there, and whether these motor vehicles will be converted or altered so that these people will not be poisoned in future. I want to say here that numerous Railway workers have in the past been poisoned, and have had to be treated, and I want to know what compensation the Railway Administration is going to give them, as the Administration is the cause of the disease these people have contracted. Before I sit down I just want to say this. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to exercise his authority and see to it that justice is done to all Railway officials who, as a result of this condition of affairs which has arisen on the Railways, have been detrimentally affected because other people have been promoted at their expense. I hope the Minister fully realises the fact that the General Manager of Railways, assisted by a small group of officials, is not only causing a serious injustice to be done to large numbers of people employed on the Railways, but that they are also misleading him as Minister. I assume that he is not aware of these machinations which are being perpetrated, because if it is happening with his approval then he will go down very much in my estimation. I assume he is not aware of what is going on. If he would appoint a small committee or commission, as asked for by the Leader of the Opposition, proof could be furnished to show whether what this side of the House has said is true or not. And if it is proved that what we have said is true, then he as an honest man, a fair and a just man, can step in and put an end to these malconditions. I want to ask him not to refuse to accept this motion. The motion is a fair and honest one and if the Minister refuses to accept it we can arrive at only one conclusion, and that is that he is afraid that these things will be brought to light by an impartial investigation, and I assume that he is not afraid. If he is not afraid, let him have an impartial investigation made, and it can then be proved whether what has been said is true or not, and whether our statements are just wild statements without any foundation or not.

We have listened to some extraordinary attacks here today, but one of the most extraordinary is the attack made on the Minister of Railways on the question of the appointments to the Railway Board. Now, surely there is one appointment which the hon. the Minister must be completely absolved from—and that is the appointment of Mr. Bates. Yet the Minister was attacked by the hon. member who has just sat down because of Mr. Bates being a member of the Railway Board. I want to draw the attention of the hon. member to the position prevailing before this Government came into power—the hon. member has said that the present members were all Party members, that all the appointments made to the Railway Board were Party members, and then he said very piously: “We were never guilty of these things, we would never do these things.” Does the hon. member recollect the appointment of the Government Whip, Mr. Malan, to the Railway Board? Mr. Malan was a member of that Party, and he was appointed to the Railway Board.…

No, you are wrong.

He was a member of the last Nationalist Party.

No, he was a member of your Party.

In the same way as Mr. Kuyt was also a member of the Nationalist Party.

No, he was appointed in 1934.

No, he was appointed by Gen. Hertzog soon after 1924. They were members of the old Nationalist Party and because they showed a certain amount of sense in following the fusion.…

Try another point.

I want to take the hon. member a little further back. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) held up his hands in horror and said. “Never, when I was a Minister, was I accused, as I am accusing the Minister of Railways now. Never was I accused of being unfair, and never was such a charge made against me in this House.” Does the hon. member forget the notice of motion proposed in 1931 by the then hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. Patrick Duncan, and which I had the honour to second, and which I shall read out because contained in that notice of motion were the charges which were made against the hon. member, and against his administration, charges which certainly were very well founded. Charges were made against your administration which were equally well-founded, as I hope to show. The charge we made then, we asked that a Select Committee should be appointed, to enquire and report upon the constitution of the Public Service Commission and the discharge by it of the duties by law entrusted to it, more particularly in regard to appointments and promotions in the Public Service and retirements therefrom, the Committee to have power to take evidence and to call for papers. What was the hon. member’s reply to that? He repudiated the charge and stated there was no foundation for it. Today he has given instances of the rapid promotions that have taken place in the Railways. I am going to give instances of the rapid promotion that took place at that time, and that took place in the Railways under the administration of the Government in which the hon. member was a Minister. I will give those instances and ask him whether his dicta that this had never taken place, and that the hon. the Minister has been guilty of a grave dereliction of duty, still stands. Let me remind him once and for all of one glaring case that was brought to his notice, and it is a case that is of particular interest in view of the developments that have taken place during the last few years. It was a clerk, and I am quoting from Hansard, year 1931, Col. 1382—

That is where Hansard stops. In 1932 he was appointed Secretary for Justice at £1,800 a year—

By your Leader.

We were not the Government—we took over in 1933. I am taking instances of rapid promotion. In 1932 he was appointed Secretary for Justice, and then he was appointed Administrator on condition that he got his pension of £500 a year, and that official after twelve years’ service retired on £500 a year. I am going to give one or two instances of rapid promotion that took place on the Railways. I am not going to say that all those promotions that took place were necessarily unfair or unreasonable, but I could not help thinking of them this morning when I listened to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and watched the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) who was one of those Ministers who never hesitated to put in whom he thought was a friend or a relative if it were necessary to do so. He challenged us at the time, and one case referred to at that time in which we challenged him was the appointment he made as Director of Forestry of a gentleman who had no qualifications to hold the post, and what was more, within a year he had to get rid of that gentleman because he found it was impossible for him to hold down that post. In all appointments the member of his own party came first, and he was not very much concerned about anything else. I am going to take some other cases. The hon. the Minister has quoted one or two cases here, and has held us up to scorn. Let me give one or two cases, and show what took place under the old Nationalist Government. I am quoting cases to show that you cannot hold because a person gets rapid promotion, it is necessarily due to influence or inefficiency in administration, and just as much as it may have been found in the days of the Nationalist Government to promote men who have since proved their ability, so equally today it is also necessary to promote officials by reason of their efficiency and special knowledge, and when the hon. member comes forward and lays charges of racialism across the floor of the House, I think he is absolutely wrong and unjust. ’ I am going to quote these cases, cases with both English and Afrikaans names. Take the first case, P. T. Steyn. He started first of all as a messenger, and then he was a clerk. In July, 1924, he was appointed a second-grade clerk at £355 per annum. In 1928 he became a first-grade clerk at £410 per annum, and also a road transport inspecting officer. In 1929 he was promoted assistant manager in the road motor service; he was then on a salary of £430. On the 1st April, 1933, he was made manager of the Road Motor Service at a salary of £800. On the 9th July, 1935, he was superintendent (operating) at £1,000, and on 1st January, 1936, he was in receipt of £1,200 a year. On the 5th December, 1936, he held a post at Port Elizabeth at £1,400 a year, and in October, 1940, he enjoyed a salary of £1,800 a year. That gentleman has gone up in the last sixteen years from £355 to £1,800. I do not say that he does not deserve it. I am not discussing the merits of it, but if you are going out for efficiency you must get these cases. But I want to point out that here is a man who has had a remarkably rapid rise compared with the majority of Railway officials. Then there is the case of D. McDonald. He started in 1915 on £132 a year, as a clerk. In June, 1928, he was getting £355 a year. I shall not go right away through the scale, but in May, 1943, he was getting £1,200 a year. He has gone over the heads of a large number of Railway officials.

How many?

Hundreds, it may be thousands. I shall give another instance,

Mr. D. H. du Plessis. He is also well known to many of us.

Are they all bilingual?

Of course they are. The hon. member asked whether they were bilingual. Will the hon. member tell me that there were not hundreds of other Railway servants who were equally bilingual, and who did not have promotion.

Give the names.

You have all the lists. If you get the Railway list you will find all the names. In 1924 Mr. Du Plessis was drawing £325 a year. On the 17th January, 1928, he was appointed welfare officer at £410. His promotion went on—£470, £490 until in February, 1934, he was drawing £625 a year, and then he went to the Railway Board as secretary and had steady increments of £100—-£625, £725, £800, £950, £975, until in December, 1936, he was in receipt of a salary of £1,400 as Secretary of the Railway Board, and today he is drawing £1,800 a year as Assistant Manager (Johannesburg).

Do you look upon that as extraordinary promotion?

I call it no more extraordinary than the case mentioned by the hon. member. The hon. member has cited cases of promotion based on efficiency, and I am quoting other examples of promotion made in the past on exactly the same basis. The hon. member will naturally decry that any promotions he made were on a racial basis, but anything the Minister does today is, of course, racial; anything done in their day was not racial.

Can you say that any promotion then made was at the cost of an English-speaking official?

I daresay they were, but I do know this, that it is a matter we took up in that debate in 1931. We were not then concerned with the question of Afrikaans or English promotions, but with the gross unfairness—the hon. member sniggers. What right has he to snigger? The hon. member in his own department—I give him credit for that—was fair to his officials. Will the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) declare that every other Minister was equally fair?

Quote instances where unfairness took place.

I gave the Minister instances ten years ago. We quoted the appointment of Dr. Geldenhuys as Director of Afforestation, one of the most scandalous appointments, and the hon. member himself had to discharge him. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) mentioned about the complaints that they were receiving from Afrikaans-speaking people that they were not being treated fairly in regard to promotion. I can tell hon. members that there is hardly a day which goes by that English-speaking members do not get equally strong complaints. We know perfectly well the difficulty of the position. But I also add this, that wherever we have tried to investigate cases we have found there has been very good reason or justification for the things that have happened, and when hon. members get up here and declare that the Minister is definitely anti-Afrikaans they are making statements that they know to be untrue.

Order.

I withdraw the words “know to be untrue” and I say that they are untrue. May I also refer to the words used by the hon. member for Piquetberg this morning when he accused the hon. Minister of making a false statement. He made that accusation this morning in regard to the Minister. One knows perfectly well that in this matter of appointments there is no one more touchy on the question of the equal relationships between the two races, but I will say this—in spite of the remarks of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom)—as the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley) has pointed out this afternoon, the bulk of the railwaymen in this country have supported the members on this side of the House.

What about Wonderboom?

Yes, I will admit you have quoted Wonderboom. For every railwayman there is in Wonderboom there are in my constituency and in Pretoria (City) and Pretoria (East) at least six or a dozen railwaymen. We have the numbers there. We have a large number of railwaymen that we represent; and I find that the bulk of the railwaymen in this country are not concerned so much with all this facial talk that is brought up. During the last few years the railwaymen in this country have been contented and happy because they have been well treated. The hon. member for Uitenhage referred to the war effort that is being made by the railwaymen, and to the fact that never have they been given any credit by the opposite side for what they have done. I am sorry to say that it is not only in that quarter that there has been this lack of appreciation by the people of this country for the great contribution our railwaymen have made in connection with the war effort. Those of us who have railway constituencies, and I have one too, and have had the opportunity of going through the workshops have seen the development that has taken place and know the magnificent job that these railwaymen have done all the way through—and I will say this, it has not been a question of race in the Railways, it has not been a question of just the English-speaking people pulling their weight—it has been a question of all sections in the Railways pulling their weight and doing their job in the best interests of the country. Hon. member may talk and they may belittle the efforts of the railwaymen, but they cannot get away from the fact that their achievement has been a magnificent one. Even people who support the opposite party have also helped to play their part in the war effort, for which this country has been responsible. There are one or two other matters that I should like to touch on for a minute or two; they are rather distinct from this particular question. But before I pass on I should like to conclude my discussion in reference to wages and bilingualism by telling a story which was often told by the late Mr. Charlie Malan when he was. Minister of Railways. He was probably as keen as anybody else on bilingualism. Once when he was on a visit to one of the Railway stations, he asked the station master if they were all bilingual.

That is a chestnut.

It is worth telling again, because it typifies the attitude many hon. members take up. The reply the Minister got was: “They are all bilingual except one.” This man was brought to him and he started speaking in Afrikaans. The Minister turned to the official and said “What do you mean by saying that he is not bilingual?” The reply he received was: “Yes, he can’t talk English.” I am glad that hon. members see the point. I should like now to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions in connection with matters in Pretoria. During the least year a very great development has taken place in the establishment of the new works at Capital Park, but Sir, there was a great difficulty there when these works were established as no houses were available at the time. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that during the last few years Railway traffic in Pretoria has probably developed to a greater extent than in any other previous period, and with the exception of the Reef, has developed to a greater extent than in any other centre and the Railway facilities in Pretoria are definitely inadequate to meet the increased volume of traffic. It is true that the loco sheds have been moved out to Capital Park, but the works are still in the old spot. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the condition of those works. I went through them this year. They are still in the same condition as when they were built 30 or 40 years ago. The conditions under which the people have to work are absolutely foul. The offices in which the clerks have to work are totally unsuitable and insanitary. They are so congested that they are definitely injurious to health. I would accordingly urge the Minister to do all he possibly can to have the works removed from their present site to another site, and that if he is going to do that he will take into consideration the point that he mentioned when he opened the Capital Park Works, and by taking the long view, make provision on such a scale as will ensure adequate room for future development. I trust that he will obtain sufficient ground to render possible adequate provision in respect of housing at this stage, and that we shall not have a repetition of the piecemeal methods we have experienced in the past. I want to ask the Minister when the Administration is going to take in hand the lowering and doubling of the Railway line round Pretoria. That has been an urgent matter for a very long time. Over 100 trains are now passing daily out of Pretoria, and with the speed that is attained nowadays the crossings in question are dangerous to life. At the same time I suggest the Minister should also consider the desirability of the electrification of these lines. There are many other matters I would like to bring up, but perhaps I shall have an opportunity to do so on a future occasion.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition appeared to be mainly concerned with the biggest stars of the Railway firmament, but we on these Labour Party benches are concerned more with the humblest toilers, very far below them. Before I get on with that, I would like to make this reply to the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock). He tells us that the railwaymen voted for the Government at the recent elections, and so they did; but, Sir, that does not necessarily show that they approve of the methods under which we are running the Railways. They voted for a Government that would carry on the war against Germany. And I do not think it is quite fair—the hon. member was not as fair as he usually is, at any rate—for the hon. member to have made that particular point. I have always had rather an admiration for the hon. the Minister of Transport. He has impressed me not only as a capable man but as a kindly man. For example, when I have visited his Pretoria office at the suggestive hour of 3.15 in the afternoon he almost invariably produced a cup of tea, for me Sir, as well as for himself. And I say, in passing, that is not characteristic of all the other Ministers. But on the 8th of February this year the Minister definitely fell from grace, when he gave me an evasive and entirely unsatisfactory answer to an important and straight forward question. As I had been corresponding with the Railway Administration for several months on this particular subject, and had not met with much more than an airy indifference from high officials concerning it, I have now no alternative but to discuss this matter before this House. It is now the seventh year that I have been privileged, from time to time, to talk to this House on matters which seem to me of moment to my constituents and to the country at large, and all the time I have borne in mind the advice of the very wise mentor I once had. He was a very wise man indeed so wise and so sure of himself that sometimes he was infuriating. He had, I may say in short, some of the characteristics of Cabinet Ministers. And what precisely did he say? He said that civility costs nothing and gains everything. In all my dealings with this House and with State departments, I have been civil and I have gained very little indeed. I have always endeavoured in my various talks with the various and multitudinous functionaries and Departments of State to set forth my business with respect and consideration, and, like Warren Hastings, I have from time to time been astonished at my own moderation. And what, Sir, have I received back? I am speaking here from my own experience, and not in any heat of anger or haste. What I say is a cold scientific fact. I have met in general with contempt, sometimes veiled, but very often most thinly veiled, and I want to say this—I think I am entitled to say this—after this long period of time I am tired of it. I want to say that as a member of Parliament I am not prepared to be a pawn on anybody’s chessboard, and I cannot guarantee to stay put just wherever it may suit a Minister to drop me. We have been told scores of times in this House that in case of difficulty a man on the Railways or in any other great State Department, receives every consideration. If I as a member of Parliament have received so little, am I expected to believe that a member of the Artisan Staff Association would receive so much more? Now, because I may be reproached with saying something reflecting adversely upon public servants, who it is stated are not in a position to defend themselves, let me give my view. I do not think we need worry about them overmuch. I think the departmental chiefs are in a safely entrenched position; they are in a very fine and in a very comfortably entrenched position, and they can very adequately protect their own interests. Moreover, without much risk they can and do when it seems good to them, attack others who are in less comfortable circumstances. It can be done and has been done, and this country is looking with ever less favour on bureaucracy, and those bureaucrats who, “dressed in a little brief authority play such fantastic tricks before high heaven as make the angels weep.” If South Africa still has any claim to being a democratic country, these State controlled railways of our must be run with some regard to the rights of men, as men, and not merely with regard to their utility as machines. We do not want the regimentation of Hitler’s Germany here in South Africa. We are fighting that very thing today on blood-bathed battlefields; and I say to the Minister with respect that he cannot have it both ways, that he cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. I commend to him a couplet I shall never forget by reason of a matter of writing 500 lines long ago in my schooldays—

This has been done within my experience, and no amount of denial can alter that fact. The case I am going to put before you is important in itself and also as illustrating those principles which I have tried briefly to lay down. The case is that of electrician Dellis, of Durban, who completed his apprenticeship in March last year. He did not have time therefore to get much money together, because in August of last year he was ordered to leave Durban and to proceed to Danskraal, which is a historic centre a very few miles west of Ladysmith in Natal. He felt that he was not able to do this, the reason being that he was not only the only son of his mother, but he was the only child of his mother, and she was unable to live at that altitude; she was unable to live anywhere except at the coast. So he demurred at the suggestion of going to Danskraal, and he said he would rather resign his position on the Railways. After a month or two of haggling, the Administration met him in that respect, accepted his resignation, and paid out the money due to him from the superannuation fund. But that was not the end of it. With the co-operation of the Controller of Industrial Man-power he was then calmly told that he would not be allowed to do work for any other electrical firm in the neighbourhood, and it is quite true, from that date to this, some six months ago, he has earned nothing whatsoever. I do not want to talk sob-stuff, but if I were the only support of my mother I also would insist on having work to do. I have got much correspondence here, a summary of which I will not inflict upon the House. Instead I will give hon. members a summary of my views on this. I say that to punish a man for wrongdoing is a reasonable thing, if it is proved that he has done wrong, but to take away the power from any man to earn bread and butter for his dependants is a thing that was written down as a never-to-occur disgrace in Magna Charta, that elementary Code of Rights of far-away 1215 A.D. To prevent this man from taking work anywhere else is like taking the farmer’s plough away from him. It is virtually a sentence of slow death by starvation. If in law the Controller of Man-power or the Controller of the South African Railways has such powers, those powers should be taken away. I want to refer also to the somewhat muddled correspondence on the subject. The references I must make are to three or four letters, out of almost hundreds in my possession spread over six months. I want to show that there is very far from unanimity in headquarters about this case; it is a muddle and mixture of contradictions. This is from a letter sent to me by the Controller of Industrial Man-power. I will give you three very short extracts. This is what the Controller of Man-power says—

I suggest that this is arrant nonsense. Does it assist the war effort to have this man and his mother starve? Does it make a pin-point of difference to the war effort whether he works for a private firm or the Railways, provided he works and does the best he can? Here is the very next paragraph—

That sounds very kind and reasonable. But what is the fact? There was no need to go aroung looking for an electrician in Durban, because they brought an electrician from Danskraal to take the place of Dellis, to do his work there. It was merely an exchange, and in the interests of the war effort why could not both the men be allowed to stay where they were? Or was it a matter of getting extra rail fares in sending one man from Durban to Danskraal and sending another man from Danskraal to Durban.

I have already told you that that is incorrect.

I am coming to the Minister’s answer, and I do not think he will be pleased when I do. The third extract is this. This is also from the Controller of Industrial Man-power who does not appear to be clear as to what his powers are—

Well, Sir, there cannot be very close liaison between the System Manager and the Controller of Man-power, because this is what the System Manager had written to Dellis—

The Controller of Man-power had apparently never heard of any such thing, according to his own statement. This passage that I now quote is from two vague and embarrassing foolscap pages which were very kindly sent to me by the System Manager, Durban. I appreciate the time he took to write this epistle to me and I told him so, but I could not understand all of it, nor altogether agree with the parts I was able to comprehend. This is from the letter that I received from the System Manager, and it appears to me to contradict what the Controller of Industrial Man-power said—

That is exactly what the workman felt unable, conscientiously, to do. The trouble arose over that. But here comes a perfectly choice post-script—

Sir, what are we talking about now—a trussed fowl? This word “tied” is perhaps a technical term, but the sound of it reminds me more of the Spanish Inquisition in the Middle Ages. Why cannot we be told things plainly one way or another, in English or in Afrikaans? Why cannot they explain what they meant? This is what the Artisans Staff Association means. They sent me bags and packages of papers until I all but staggered under the weight, all necessary or unnecessary and all having some bearing on the efficient or inefficient running of our Railways. Why do I have to have a hundred letters in connection with a case like this? Is it necessary? The Secretary of the Artisans Staff Association says this—

This is not I, the rebellious Labour man speaking, but the Secretary of the Artisans Staff Association. And the Secretary continues—

He said it; I merely say, “hoor, hoor.” When the tale had wearied me beyond description, and when I had half a dozen or a dozen letters from the man to say, “Where do. I go; what do I do; who feeds me,” not being in a position myself to feed him, I sent a telegram to the System Manager of Natal asking him to be good enough to give this man a clearance. I wired—

I got a reply from the System Manager, Natal, and this is the letter that a member of Parliament receives after he has complained for months on behalf of a man who has refused to do a certain thing because he cannot, and this is the consequence—

The latter part sounds like a mistaken-minded second lieutenant writing to a major in our army. That is the end of it. We are back at exactly the place from which we started. I know that the System Manager of Natal is very amiable and able, and I think this peremptory letter is not representative of him, but is representative of the growing contempt which great departments like the Railways have for mere Members of Parliament, and I for one have come to the end of my tolerance of being treated as a sort of emergency errand boy. There are many appeals to us in Session time. Business presses so much that we are begged and prayed to be brief in our remarks and then the recess comes, which is much longer than the Session. Thereupon the Minister becomes so busy and the chief officials are so busy that we might as well go and shout down the well as to write letters to them. If that is an exaggeration, I apologise for the excess, but there is a very large measure of truth in it and I deplore it. I have mentioned this matter because it is not merely one which concerns electrician Dellis of Durban; it is a matter in which is raised the fundamental right of man to have liberty of his person and liberty to earn a decent living in our community. It is a great honour to be interrupted by a Minister, and the Minister did interrupt me early in my speech and said that he had replied to my question. Sir, he did reply, and I have already described that answer. I said it was evasive and entirely unsatisfactory. The Minister admitted that the man had suffered all these disabilities, but he said it was the result of his own action. I now say that it was the Administration which opened this matter by ordering this man to Danskraal, and in so far as Dellis has acted at all, he acted in conjunction with the Railway Administration, which freely accepted his resignation, and is therefore as much responsible for the consequences as he himself. Neither the Minister nor anyone else fairly can have it both ways. I end with this: I do not want to receive any more letters about Dellis and his mother. I am sure it is within the competence of the Minister and within the desire of that great good nature of his to put this relatively small matter right. I hope on this occasion the Minister will not mind my putting him in memory of a certain little girl who had a little curl right down the middle of her forehead; when she was good she was very very good, but when she was bad, she was horrid. Well, when the Minister does his best, he is good. But this is not his best. We hope and believe that he will reverse this decision that has been made, and give Dellis of Durban a chance. Why should they starve him? For that is the process that is going on.

I think if ever a case has been made out for this matter to go to a Select Committee, we did so this afternoon. Even hon. members on the other side wanted to step into the breech, and after listening to them we are more convinced than ever that this investigation is necessary. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) was not at all in a position to refute the charge which we made in regard to Marshall Clark. He made certain other accusations, and all the time he was accusing only himself; but the first point he mentioned was this. The late Mr. Tinie Malan was alleged to have been appointed to the Railway Board by the Nationalist Party, but it was in fact his own coalition government which took him away from his post as Whip and appointed him to the Railway Board.

It was your Minister.

It seems to me the hon. member wants to avoid the issue. At that time there were ex-Saps and ex-Nationalists. Then I come to the case of. Dr. Hans van Rensburg. I want to ask who promoted him and appointed him to the position of Administrator. Was it not his own leader? And was it not his own leader who relieved him from the post of Administrator and gave him a pension on top of it? It does not take the matter any further if we make accusations and all the time we are accusing ourselves.

Who appointed him as Secretary for Justice?

Your Government.

The hon. members asks who appointed Dr. van Rensburg as Administrator. My reply is that his own leader did so; the present Prime Minister appointed him to that position. Then the hon. member made this further statement here. He referred to Dr. Geldenhuys. I want to tell the hon. member that Dr. Geldenhuys was never dismissed from the Department of Forestry. He, too, was appointed as Ambassador in Italy by the hon. member’s Coalition Government.

He was transferred because he was no good. Ask the hon. member for Wolmaransstad.(Gen. Kemp).

Take your medicine.

The hon. member has now come along and mentioned the names of various highly placed officials in the Railway service, namely, Mr. Steyn, Mr. McDonald and Mr. Du Plessis, and he wanted to prove that these persons received very rapid promotion. I want to ask the hon. member this. Can he mention one case where in the case of these individuals positions were manipulated in order to benefit them? They may have received promotion, but there was no manipulation.

Read the speech which the hon. member for Yeoville made in this House in 1941.

The hon. member can read it to me himself when he gets the opportunity. If he is surprised that people like Mr. Steyn and Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Du Plessis received very rapid promotion, I want to tell him how Afrikaans-speaking persons were prejudiced in the South African Railways under the old S.A.P. Government before 1924.

Where he also had a seat.

Then I want to mention the case of two men whose positions today are more or less comparable, namely, Mr. Heckroodt and Mr. Chittenden. Mr. Heckroodt entered the service in 1908, and in 1930 he became first grade clerk. In other words, it took him 22 years; and Mr. Chittenden joined the service in 1911, and he became first grade clerk in 1925. Mr. Heckroodt took 22 years to reach his first grade, and Mr. Chittenden reached the first grade in fourteen years. Does the Minister or the General Manager want to deny that Mr. Heckroodt is a very capable official?

The hon. member is looking as bad as he feels.

Why are you so pale now?

It is no use coming here and making accusations left and right. I want to ask the hon. member why he did not have the courage to defend the theft of examination papers which took place in Durban? Why does he not defend the manipulation of posts to which we referred in this House last year? These posts are brought up and down to these men by lift. Why does he not defend the case of Marshall Clark? I say that if every a case has been made out in this House, we have done so.

Ask the Minister.

I shall come to the Minister in a moment, and then I will tell you what he will do. He will never accept this motion. Last year when we raised this matter, we asked that investigations should be made, and do you know what the Minister’s reply was last year? He said—

What hope have I got that the Minister will accept this? The Minister is not concerned about the injustice done to his officials in the Railway Department. He is concerned about his own skin and his own person and that of the General Manager. That is why he says that he cannot be wrong, that, he must always be right.

[Inaudible.]

I am so glad that the hon. member has mentioned that. I had nearly forgotten that point. The hon. member makes this accusation against my Leader, that they introduced a motion in 1931 asking for an investigation into the position of officers in the public service. Do you know to what that referred? The late Mr. Patrick Duncan introduced a motion and you seconded it, and it was aimed at the Public Service Commission which was then appointed. My hon. Leader did not reappoint the old commission which served under the South African Party. And do you know why not? Because it was revealed here that that S.A.P. commission had reported to the Minister of the Interior that he should not appoint Afrikaans-speaking persons to the commission. Where does one find greater racial discrimination than we had at that time.

That is not correct.

That is correct. There is my Leader, the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan). Let him say whether or not that is so.

It is correct.

The General Manager has now thought fit to play the role of member of Parliament and the General Manager takes it upon himself freely to criticise members of Parliament under the semblance of wishing to protect his officials. And this is what he says in his annual report—

Last year I made a definite and a personal complaint or charge against the General Manager, namely, that he had sent secret circulars to the heads of departments, and had marked them “confidential and secret.” Now I want to ask him this. Here he had an opportunity to defend himself. Why did he not say a single word in regard to those secret letters which he sent to his department, and in which he practically forced his officers to nominate unilingual persons for promotion? Why did he not defend himself? The General Manager wanted to intimate that no injustice was being done to Afrikaans-speaking officials, and then he gave these figures—and it will be interesting to know what the South. African Railways are doing. Eighty per cent. of the staff is Afrikaans-speaking, and how many of them are occupying senior positions. Only 20.49 per cent. while the English-speaking officers occupy 79.51 per cent. of the senior posts. The Afrikaans-speaking officers represent 80 per cent. of the officers in the service, and we find that they occupy only 20 per cent. of the senior posts, and then we are told that the English-speaking officers suffered an injustice.

What do you say now?

He does not understand.

He understands well enough. Last year the Minister said that he challenged us, as a result of those secret letters, to mention a single case where he had promoted a unilingual officer. A question was put to him this year, and his own department gave the reply. The question which was put here was this: “How many unilingual officers had been promoted or appointed since the 1st September, 1939, or were utilised in a casual capacity in graded positions?” And the reply was—

Well, the Minister threw out this challenge and he himself replied to the challenge. These secret letters sent out by the General Manager bore fruit—59 unilingual people were promoted. What becomes of his challenge now? I do not want to dwell on this point any longer. I want to deal with something else in connection with the General Manager’s report. Last year we protested here when a Bill was introduced to levy a tax on passengers using our trains. We argued that that Bill was in conflict with the provisions of the South Africa Act, namely that the Railways could not be used as a taxing machine, but the Minister of Railways denied that. But now the General Manager of Railways who, as my hon. leader said, formulates the policy, comes along and calls his own Minister to order. He tells the Minister that he will tell him what the correct position is. In the first place he draws the attention of the Minister to the provisions of the South Africa Act in reference to the purpose for which the Railways can be used. He says that this is laid down in the South Africa Act—

And then he goes on in his report to say—

The General Manager calls the Minister to order because the Minister said that he was not acting contrary to the South Africa Act, I want to quote a further passage from the report. He goes on—

We know that in some cases lower tariffs are applied on the Railways to agricultural products and such articles—

What I cannot understand from the General Manager of Railways is this. He condemns this tax, but he approves of it, and on the other hand he has great admiration for what the Railways are doing in connection with the war effort. He comes and tells us how much the Railways have contributed and even lost in the interests of the war effort. Before I come to that, I just want to say this. When we were very concerned on the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours about these services which were being rendered by the Railways in the interests of the war, we voiced the fear that it must have a detrimental effect on the Railways. We then asked the General Manager whether he reduced the tariffs for the Defence Department, and his reply was that he granted a reduction of 33⅓ per cent. on goods, and 50 per cent. on passenger tariffs. We then clearly asked the General Manager of Railways in the Select Committee of 1942 whether the Railways had done these things at a loss, and this was his reply—

Mr. Ben Schoeman then put the following question—

The General Manager’s reply was as follows—

In other words, they make a profit but not very much. And now the General Manager of Railways comes along and at the beginning of this year he gives us a report, and here we have these remarkable words which he uses in his January bulletin—

And now I want to ask the Minister this question. What is the use of our going to a Select Committee and putting questions to the General Manager in regard to a matter about which we are concerned, and he then gives the reply which he did, telling us that he conveys the goods not at a loss but at a slight profit, and now he states in his report that all the time he has done so at a loss? Which of the two statements must be believed—what is stated in the report of the Select Committee or what is stated in the bulletin? Then the General Manager goes on and he gives more details in regard to the losses. He says—

In other words, £6,000,000 for the four years. He goes on to say—

A serious charge was made here this afternoon by one of the Labour members. Here we again have the position which I described. Are we not to be suspicious when we see that the position is manipulated in this manner? Are we not to be suspicious in regard to the secret letters which were circularised? Are we not to feel in our hearts that everything is not in order? The Minister comes from a country which holds itself up as a country which stands for clean administration, and I believe that the Minister is in favour of that. I want to tell him this, however, that if he wants to follow that tradition, I think he has no alternative but to accept the motion of the Leader of the Opposition and to have these things investigated. If that is done no unnecessary blame need rest on him or on the General Manager of Railways or anyone else. But there is another matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister, and I do so because certain members on the other side rose and said that we did not want to acknowledge and express our gratitude for what the Railway people, were doing for the war. As the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has already indicated, we are against the war in principle, and we criticise these things because we think that it is not right towards the Railways and towards the personnel. I want to mention a few other cases. On the Select Committee we put questions to the General Manager of Railways in regard to the Railway workshops, because it was said that the Railway workshops were being used to manufacture war implements and ammunition. We put certain questions in that connection, and the General Manager replied as follows—

He says that the Railways are so busy and that there is such heavy traffic that they could not get the locomotives and trucks to the workshops. The following question was hen put up by Mr. B. J. Schoeman—

What was the reply of the General Manager of Railways?—

We then asked why the trucks did not come to the workshops. The reply was that these people were without work as a result of the fact that the trucks and locomotives could not go to the workshops and consequently they were kept busy with the manufacture of war material. And what is the position in connection with the trucks? On page 2 of the report of the General Manager we find the following—

He now says that numbers of trucks had to wait for repairs. And what do we find the Minister is doing today with the various workshops? An hon. member put a question to the Minister the other day, and he replied that they were making toys in the workshops for children and for the Liberty Cavalcade, and while they are making toys to augment the war funds, trucks and large numbers of locomotives which we need are standing idle, and there is no one to repair them and no place in which to do it. What is the Railway Administration doing now in an effort to rectify the position? The General Manager or the Minister goes to the Chamber of Mines and asks whether they cannot use the workshops of the Chamber of Mines to do these repairs. We therefore have this position, that in the workshops of the Railways toys are being made for children, and then the Administration hires workshops to repair the trucks. The department has up to the present paid out an amount of £39,426 for the privilege of using the workshops of the Chamber of Mines. The Minister or the General Manager went even further. He saw that the number of trucks was being greatly reduced and then proceeded to make an arrangement with an engineering firm on the Rand that they should build a thousand trucks for the Administration. In his own workshops toys were being made for children! And do you know on what conditions those trucks are being made for the Administration? It is being done on the system of cost-plus. It says so in this bulletin. It is said that the goods which they are making for the Department of Defence, must be made without taking a single penny’s profit on it, because they do not want to make any profit out of the Department of Defence. And then at the same time, while they are making toys and manufacturing other articles for the military, they employ an engineering firm to make trucks on the cost-plus system. We have learned that this system of cost-plus results in the greatest possible waste of money. We asked the Minister what the trucks which were being made by that firm would cost. His reply was that no truck had yet been completed, and that they could not therefore say what it would cost. That, is what we get under the system of cost-plus. The Minister will have to intervene, otherwise we shall get another repetition of the scandals which we have already had in connection with the Department of Defence. The General Manager further states in his report that last year the Railway Department ran 5,000 special through trains, apart from hundreds of additional trains over short distances for the Department of Defence. Then I also want to say this. I predict that in view of the fact that trucks and locomotives are not being properly repaired today, and in view of the fact that the Minister is using the workshops to make toys for children and material for the military, our rolling material will deteriorate to such an extent that eventually it will come to breaking point. Machinery of this type is like a motor car. When anything goes wrong with a motor car, even if it is something small, and the car is not taken to a garage, the defect becomes all the more serious until it reaches breaking point. The time will come when, as far as our railways are concerned, we will also reach breaking point, and then accidents will take place on an unprecedented scale. There are, for example, 600 locomotives at the moment which should have been out of service six years ago. They are still in service, and the workshops are being used to make toys. I want to come to another matter, which also appears in the report of the General Manager, in which he states that 14,000 Railway officials joined the military forces. I want to say at once what I stated previously. I have respect for the man who believes in a cause and who has the courage of his convictions to fight for that cause—even though I differ from him. I am not saying anything against those people who want to sacrifice their lives for their convictions. But I want to point out another aspect of the matter. The Minister’s policy—and it is also stated by the General Manager of Railways—is that the South African Railways will again absorb these people into the service—all of them. The Minister of Railways says that in addition thereto they are going to employ a further 2,500 returned soldiers. Now I want to ask the Minister this. What assurance can he give us that when the 14,000 returned soldiers are re-absorbed and these additional 2,500 soldiers are appointed, a number of the existing personnel will not be dismissed? I want to say clearly that I believe that the State is obliged to find work for anybody who is without employment, whether they be soldiers or civilians. That is the attitude of this side. That is why we are a national party. We do not think of the soldiers only; and say that the others can take care of themselves. It is no use saying that we are going to re-absorb all the returned soldiers and appoint a further 2,500 people, if we dispense with the services of other people. Does the Minister believe that the work of the Railways will so expand that they can appoint a further 16,500 people? I know that his department does not believe that. The undertaking will shrink and will probably be able to do with less personnel. Is that the reason why the Minister adopted the procedure of letting all the persons who entered the service during the war sign an undertaking beforehand that they would be prepared to vacate their posts if such posts are required for returned soldiers? I should like the Minister to give a clear reply on this point because he is going very far. There are special regulations which provide that a man who wants to enter the Railways must pass certain examinations, and this is what the Minister has in mind in regard to returned soldiers, he is going to provide employment for 2,500 of them in addition to the 14,000 who were in the Railway service, and he is going to employ those 2,500 in the circumstances described in the report of the General Manager. In that report it is stated—

He says in anticipation that he is prepared to contravene the Railway regulations in order to effect that, and then he goes on to say—

In other words, he is going to appoint persons in the Railway service as though they entered the Railway service on the date when they entered the military service. That is the intention of the Minister, the General Manager, and his friends. I want to repeat it. We on this side are prepared to provide employment for any man, but what is the use of appointing A and dismissing B? I should like the Minister to reply fully to these questions.

I do not intend to reply to the hon. member on the charges which have been made, although I think that the charges are undoubtedly serious, and they will have to be dealt with, but I have no doubt that they will be dealt with by the Minister who alone has the full facts to give to the House. I was rather hoping that the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) would have responded to the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley) that something might be said on that side with regard to the war work and the war effort done by the staff of the Railways, beginning with the Minister and going to the General Manager and the rest, but the only thing the hon. member had to say on that was that they on that side of the House were against the war. Surely even then these are all South Africans, and every one will have to admit that the services of these men under very difficult war conditions have been magnificent, and every member of Parliament should pay a tribute to their work, whether he is against the war or not.

We quite appreciate the work they do on the Railways.

The hon. member had the opportunity of saying that it was wonderful work, but the only answer he gave was: “We are against the war.” In other words, they cannot be expected to refer to their efforts. But whether they are against the war or not, they should appreciate that the work put in by these men on the Railways has been an example to the whole world, and they should, as South Africans, thoroughly endorse that statement.

I did say that. I said I had respect for the men.…

Yes; the hon. member did say that he had respect for the men who had the courage of their convictions. I think it is a pity he lost an opportunity there of doing the right thing. Well, I rose for the purpose of drawing the attention of the Minister to two matters, and I hope in his reply he will be able to make a statement on them. In the first place we are devoting a lot of time to discussing postwar plans. I should like the Minister, if he is in a position to do so, to let us know what the post-war plans of the Railways are in regard to Railway development. I mention this because I was very interested a little while ago in reading an address given by the General Manager of Railways which certainly showed a grip of this vast Railway system and an interest in its development second to none to that shown by any of the other distinguished General Managers we have had. Some of the information which he gave was very interesting. He referred to the intention to construct 1,000 big trucks at a cost of about £1,000,000, which are going to be made in South Africa. I noticed that the hon. member for Colesberg rather sneered at the fact that they were going to be made by a company and not by the Administration. Well, I suppose there is a good reason for that. We are all anxious that as much construction work should be done here, as is possible. I was interested in what Mr. Hoffe said about the workshops being reconstructed which would mean employment for 6,000 men. I was also interested in what he said about the erection of four big railway stations, Durban, Johannesburg. Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. Perhaps the Minister can also tell us whether finality has been reached in the dispute about the Wanderers, and whether the Wanderers is to be the site for a new station or not. The wishes of Johannesburg should be given effect to, if at all possible.

What about the Union Grounds?

The House would like to know whether some decision has been arrived at. I was also interested in the statements he made in regard to the possibility of increasing the speed of our trains by improvements on the permanent way, and altogether that the indications were that great developments are expected on the Railways after the war, and I think if the Minister will take this opportunity of telling us something about it we would be very interested, and so would the country. Another interesting matter is the proposed strengthening of the stabilisation fund. The remark was made by him that according to an eminent economist’s report on the Rhodesian Railways—that of professor Frankel of Johannesburg—as £3,000,000 was the amount he laid down that the Rhodesian Railways should have for its stabilisation fund, our stabilisation fund instead of being £10,000,000 should be £24,000,000. The Minister might tell us what he is going to do to strengthen this fund as soon as possible. The other matter on which I should like some information is the vexed question of what is going to happen to the new Cape Town station. I think it is only fair to pay tribute here—it is not often one has the opportunity to pay tribute to a previous Minister of Railways, that is to Mr. Pirow, who I think was responsible for making that big contract with these very fine workmen from Holland who have reclaimed a portion of the sea and given us a new Cape Town. Cape Town has become a city of very great importance, especially during the war; it has become a link between East and West and the Atlantic and the Pacific, and few people I think realised until the war occurred what limitless opportunities there were in the development of Cape Town. Now this reclamation has taken place we have the site for a new and beautiful city before us, and it is a pity that at this stage there should be some differences of opinion between the City Hall authorities and the Railway authorities as to where the new station should be erected. I do not want to be involved in this controversy; I am only concerned that there is a controversy about it, because so far as the citizens of Cape Town are concerned, I think the general feeling is that here is a great opportunity, not to be missed, of building a city beautiful. Cape Town is a very old city, and much of it like Topsy has just grown up anyhow, and it is very difficult to fashion and alter the shape of a city so old as this, and to rebuild it. But here is a heaven-sent opportunity to build one of the most beautiful cities in the world if we plan properly and look not merely to the immediate present but to the future. The citizens of Cape Town are awaiting with eagerness the result of the negotiations that have been going on between the Railway authorities and the City Hall authorities, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us exactly what the position is now. Admittedly one of the difficulties has been the question of the suburban travellers, who use the trains so freely; the Railways are very necessary to them and some of them are rather concerned about possibly having a long distance to walk to get to their work if the station is moved from Adderley Street to the new site. But, Sir, I would mention this, and I believe the suggestion has already been made—the skill and ingenuity of the Railway engineers could overcome the difficulties—that we might have recourse to an underground Railway. We have no underground Railway here at all, but it should not be difficult for an underground system to be planned as far as Adderley Street, which would enable the Railway travellers to be carried into Cape Town instead of having to find their way from the new station to the city. But the main line station and the Railway system generally should be removed to the new site. If that is not done you will have a city divided into two by the Railway lines, a most awkward thing indeed. The City Hall authorities intend, as far as I know, to take their administrative buildings there. In other words, this site is going to contain the new city of Cape Town. The old city will be still here, but the new city designed on the best architectural lines will greet the visitor to South Africa and make a very lasting impression on him. So with an eye to the future and not merely to the present, I do think we should take this opportunity that has presented itself of erecting a new city, and a city beautiful. The city visualised is on a plan that looks far ahead. Admittedly it does not look to the immediate present, but far ahead, opportunity being taken to plan on a really fine scale. What I would also like the Minister to deal with in his reply is whether the suggestion has been made by the City Council that there should be a re-establishment of a committee that previously existed, known as the Technical Committee, comprised of representatives of both the Railways and the City Council. I am told that the Minister is not at the moment prepared to agree to the re-appointment of this committee. I hope, Sir, that he has not finally made up his mind on that, and will reconsider it, because it is obvious while discussions are in progress there should be an independent committee—it is independent in the sense that there are experts on both side—the parties themselves will of course be interested, but the committee will consisit of experts who will be able to take an impartial view of the matter. I suggest that the committee should be reconstituted. Failing that I think it would difficult to agree upon an entirely outside committee, but if there is to be a committee appointed by interested parties, the reconstitution of this committee is, I think, as far as the Minister can go. I hope that he will not take a narrow view of the matter, and that he will appreciate that both sides have only one object, and that is the public interest and the public comfort. I believe, Sir, that the predecessor of the Minister in office promised that if there was a deadlock between the City Council and the Railway Authorities about the re-planning, that the deadlock would be submitted to a committee consisting of independent members of the Cabinet; I suppose what he had in mind was a committee comprised of members of the Cabinet who are not concerned with the Railway Administration, and who would be able to take an independent view of the situation. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of that promise made by his predecessor to the City Council, but if he does go into the matter and finds that such a promise was made, I do hope that if there is a deadlock the promise will be carried out. I suggest that every avenue should be explored to see whether it is not possible to formulate a scheme acceptable to both sides. I do believe that with careful planning it will be easy to arrive at a solution which will satisfy the Railway Authorities and the City Hall and the general public as well, and to provide Cape Town with the opportunity for the erection of a new city which will stand as a monument of all time to what South Africans can achieve.

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister and of the House to the question of the wages that are given to the lower paid employees on the Railways. I am able to do this the more effectively, because as a trained artisan amongst the many employers I have served under, I did at one time also serve under the Railway Administration; that was in Queenstown as a fitter. Therefore I have the right to say that I have a really practical knowledge of the matter. Sir, I am being practical and not just theoretical when I face up to this particular subject. It has been said, and I think we are all agreed it is true, that the labourer is worthy of his hire. Unfortunately, Sir, we have attached to the term “labourer” a very distinct meaning in our modern world. A labourer is a labourer. In other words he is a man who is looked upon as being outside the pale in so far as he has not been able to acquire any skill and therefore cannot take his place in what are described as the ranks of the skilled artisans. It is generally agreed that when you have described a man as a labourer, it naturally follows that he shall receive a minimum rate of pay. If that minimum rate of pay were sufficient to provide for the needs of a man who after all is looked upon by the State as the potential father of a family, that would not be so onerous, but that minimum takes no regard really of the fact that the man is expected normally and naturally to become a father and to contribute towards what is after all the most valuable raw material, the people, that any nation can have, in order that the country may go ahead. Now, Sir, it is a fact—the Minister cannot deny it, nor can any of us deny it—that the lower strata in the Railway service do not earn enough money to warrant them becoming the fathers of families. The cynic may say, “Well, they should not become fathers,” but that is not the answer, Mr. Speaker. The answer is: if that should be the case then we should see to it that by every means possible we should enable that man to earn enough money to become the father of a family. The Minister may say, fairly too, that if charges are brought against him of not spending enough money in any particular direction, then it is up to us to indicate by what means he can obtain the money he is ready to spend; and I want to suggest that in an economic unit like the Railway Administration there is ready to hand a basis upon which it will be possible for us to attempt to equalise earnings as far as the Railway is concerned. The Railway is self-contained and it holds a very privileged position in the economy of the country. It seems to me that within the compass of the Railway Administration we have the right to expect that there should be some attempt made to bring about that equality of income that we all, in theory, agree is correct. What is the general argument in regard to wages in this country? It is that the skilled artisan is getting too high a rate of pay, because when you compare his pay with the pay of the Unskilled man there is such a ridiculous gap. It might equally well be argued, too, though it is not so heavily stressed, that in the case of an official who is earning £2,500 a year the gap is too great between him and the skilled artisan. I think that one can say that without making a statement that appears unreasonable. And it seems to me that the Railway Administration possesses the means to ensure that to the fullest possible extent railwaymen shall be paid at the highest rate that is possible, having regard to all the circumstances. The implications of low wages on the Railways extend beyond the Railways themselves. We have heard from time to time of wage determinations that have had to be made in industries outside the Railways, because it was evident that justice demanded that those determinations should be made. But the fact is this, that although those determinations were made in industry, there is no indication that the Railway is inclined to accept what is determined as a proper wage, as a result of ascertaining what it costs an unskilled labourer to live. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to another matter, based on my personal experience, that has confronted me in Germiston. Until the end of the month I shall still be a member of the Germiston Town Council, and I may say that we have had this experience in the council in connection with the sub-economic housing scheme, which we among very few municipalities have carried into effect. We have gone ahead with the scheme, and we find that quite a considerable percentage of our houses are occupied by Railway employees. That means that the labourer on the Railways is unable to face an economic proposition when it comes to the payment of rent, and so he comes to us and asks us if he may be allowed to reside in one of our sub-economic houses, and we have agreed. We have not barred railwaymen from these houses. But, Mr. Speaker, in facing the complete problem we realised that in agreeing to the railwaymen’s request, we were necessarily, in the absence of a full and comprehensive scheme, denying possible tenancy to some other person not employed on the Railways. In view of that we decided that we should approach the Railway Administration; we did so and suggested that as in the case of the higher-paid men on the Railways a definite subsidy is granted for the purchase of a house—it is either rent or purchase—they might extend the same idea to these people who were obviously too badly paid to afford an economic rent, let alone the purchase of a house. The Railway Administration have Settled their policy in regard to subsidies. I say in a spirit of fairness, as an artisan, that if anyone can be expected to afford to bear the burden of the purchase of a house, or the renting of an economic house, those men who are receiving artisans’ wages might be expected to do it. But it cannot be expected by anybody at all that the labourer on his present scale of wages, should be able to do that. Yet you have this great gap between the man who has and the man who has not, and it appears that the saying is as applicable today as it ever was, that “To whom that hath shall be given and to him who hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” The whole trend of the country’s economy is in the direction of the activities of the industrialist and of the commercial man. Though I do not like to use the term I say that the “victim” of wage determination is faced with circumstances that he cannot escape. A wage determination is made and he has to pay willingly or unwillingly. But the Railway Administration beg to be excused from the provisions of the wage determination. Instead of the friendly reaction of the industrialist and of the commercial man, you have the reaction of a man who disagrees. The businessman says: “I do not mind paying decent wages but surely I can expect the State in one of its controlled organisations to see that their employees are not underpaid.” I think that the industrialist and the commercial man are quite justified in their argument, and that it would be at least a sign of grace on the part of the Minister and on the part of the Administration, if they agreed to adhere to the wage determinations that prevail in the districts where we have these numbers of lower-paid people. There is another point in regard to Railway employment which has a bearing on wages, and that is the existence of what are called privileges. I suppose it can be said that if you enjoy a privilege then in some way at some time or other you pay for it; and I think it can be rightly said that the railwaymen pay for their privileges. One of their privileges that is very largely exercised is that that allows an employee on the Railways and his family a free pass in order that they may proceed once a year on holiday. The assumption that they may be able to go on that holiday is hypothetical. I am going to be personal, and I may say that I was on the Railways for three and a half years, and during that period as a man with a family, I could not honestly use that free pass. I could not afford to do so. If I had been indifferent to the interests of many people, to the interests of the grocer and of all the tradespeople who provided us with foodstuffs, and to the interests of my landlord—if I had been careless about their interests I could have told them they would have to wait for payment of their bills and I could have utilised my free pass. But, Mr. Speaker, I did not follow that course. Some people do that, and it is a temptation. In the case of the lower paid employees, it is obvious that this privilege presents a great temptation; and if they use that free pass the result often is that they become financially embarrassed. So when we talk of privileges, we must look at every aspect of the question, and not merely accept the privilege at its face value. To me the privilege had a face value, but it had no real value, and if that were the case with an artisan, what must the position be in respect of thousands of men who are not paid on the artisan’s standard? It is true that there are benefits in respect of medical attention, hospitalisation and so on, but it would be wrong to say that because a Railwayman is able to enjoy those benefits, that he should not have an adequate economic wage. These benefits are possible because large numbers of people are enabled to practice communal thrift, and by their contributions build up the funds necessary to bear the cost, and should not prejudice the basic rate of wages. I want, therefore, to make this appeal to the Minister, nor do I for a moment suggest that I am not agreeable that he should get all the money he wants for carrying out his job. I appreciate that in the administration of the Railways we have hard-headed men who, for their business ability and competence are hard to beat, but that hard-headed body of business men who manage the Railways must naturally attune their efforts to the temper of Parliament. One can hardly expect otherwise. It is from the Minister that we must expect the impetus which will assist in raising this body of badly paid labourers from the morass of poverty in which they are struggling to a better life. I trust that he will take up the cause of the “labourer, semi- and unskilled.”

I wish to support the amendment because in doing so I shall be interpreting the wishes not only of the Railway workers in my constituency but the wishes of the great majority of the Railway workers in this country. There was a time when our Railway service was of a high standing and when our Railway Administration was a credit to the country, when every man from the highest to the lowest official felt perfectly safe under the Railway Administration because the officials knew that even if they failed to get justice done to them in their immediate circle, they could voice their complaints and go to somebody higher up. As a result there was a feeling of security, but that feeling of security no longer prevails today. It’s no use our glossing over matters; it is no use the Minister or the General Manager trying to make us believe that everything in the garden is lovely. There is a wholesale feeling of dissatisfaction among the members of the Railway Service, and things are going on which are not to the benefit of the proper administration of our Railways. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) got up here and posed as the representative of the Railway workers. He has no right to speak on behalf of the Railway workers. I just want to say that if the future of the hon. member for Sunnyside were to depend on the votes of the Railway workers in his own constituency, he would not even be elected to the City Council of Pretoria. There is a feeling of uneasiness among the Railway workers, and I particularly wish to draw attention to the amount of espionage and vindictiveness which still prevails in the Railway Administration to day. Perhaps that particular phenomenon has decreased in other respects, but it does seem as though the spirit of vindictiveness has found a real paradise in our Railways. The hon. member for Sunnyside said that he had visited the Railway workshops in Pretoria. I wonder whether when he was there he had a look at the lists that were pasted up, containing the names of the men who had contributed to the war funds, and names of men who had not contributed. That sort of thing is not conducive to a good and contented service. We further have this sort of thing happening that officials are appointed to keep an eye on other officials, to see whether they are taking part in these liberty cavalcades, or war fairs; to see whether they attend any of those affairs or not. A careful eye is kept on them to see whether they make any contributions, and we have really reached the position in Pretoria where officials are sent out to spy on other officials, and to watch out and see whether on Wednesdays and Saturdays they have put anything in the collection boxes for Russia, and other war funds. We have evidence to prove this. We further have this phenomenon—and I experienced this myself a fortnight before I left Pretoria—that officials are warned not to attend culture evenings held by Afrikaans organisations. We have had an instance of an official being warned not to attend a Boer orchestra evening because if he did so he would be liable to prosecution. Those are conditions which cannot be tolerated. They certainly do not tend to promote a good spirit in the Railway service. I don’t want to say anything about the amount of discrimination which is indulged in. The Minister’s reply in itself constitutes a charge, but I just want to say this, that discrimination in the Railway service has reached the high water mark. Not only is there discrimination so far as promotion is concerned, but also in regard to transfers to other places. The discrimination in respect of promotion is quite enough, but the discrimination that is indulged in where transfers of officials are concerned constitutes a charge in itself. I should like the Minister to reply to that. Let him cast, his eye at the transfers of Afrikaans-speaking officials to all kinds of small places. Discrimination is indulged in, and that sort of thing certainly does not contribute towards a contented and good service. There is another matter which I want to bring to the notice of the House, and that is the fact that our Railways are very quickly becoming more and more “black.” Non-Europeans are being employed on an ever increasing scale. Let me take Pretoria as an example; there are any number of instances where non-Europeans have been appointed to do exactly the same work as Europeans are doing—in many cases they have to work side by side with the Europeans. That sort of thing does not promote good feelings, it causes conflicts which are very unpleasant, and which are certainly not in the interest of the Railway Administration. I also want to plead with the Minister to consider the position of the lower paid officials. Those officials have over a period of time proved that they are faithfully carrying out their duties. They have done work which has surprised everyone. Those people are overworked—and often they have had to do their work under very trying conditions. There is a moral obligation on the Minister to look after these people and to see that they are paid proper salaries and wages. They are people with large families and they are a big asset to the State. It is in the interest of the Railway Administration, and in the interest of the State, that these people should be paid decent salaries. I want to associate myself with the request made by this side of the House. Serious complaints have been made against the Railway Administration. The Minister now has the opportunity, and the General Manager now has the opportunity of defending themselves against the charges which have been made against them—charges that unjust treatment has been meted out to certain Railway officials. Let the General Manager of Railways and the Minister of Railways avail themselves of this opportunity to appoint that commission. Everyone will then have an opportunity of placing facts before that commission, and in that way the truth can be ascertained, and everything that is wrong can be put right.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked for a commission of enquiry to be appointed to investigate appointments and promotions in the Railways, because it is alleged that there has been discrimination there. The investigation is asked to start as from the year 1939. Why not from 1924, and why only in the Railway Department and not in the other Departments as well? If that were done we would be able to draw a comparison between what was done between the years 1924 and 1932 and what was done between the years 1939 and the present.

You move it and we will support you.

The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) is very proud of the fact that all the appointments made at the time when he was Minister were fully justified. Well, I should like to bring something to the notice of this House in which I was personally concerned. The hon. member for Piquetberg in those days was Minister of Interior and Minister of Public Health and he had to make an appointment at Middelburg. The then District Surgeon had reached the age of retirement. At that time I was Railway medical officer at Middelburg. I also made application for the position of district surgeon. The Minister’s secretary notified me that it was the Government’s policy if there was more than one doctor resident in a town, not to allow one doctor to occupy all the Government posts, and that in the event of my being appointed as district surgeon I would have to resign as Railway doctor. I thought that was fair and just. I was subsequently appointed as district surgeon and I resigned as Railway medical officer.

So is your complaint that you were appointed?

Let me tell the hon. member why I am raising the matter here, and let me also tell him how it was that I received my appointment. I was appointed because the district committee of the Nationalist Party was unable to decide which of the two Nationalist doctors was the better. Just about the same time the doctor who occupied both positions at Klerksdorp, namely, that of district surgeon and of Railway medical officer, died. There were four doctors resident in Klerksdorp and they applied for the position. What did the Minister do then? He appointed a man from Koster, not a man who was resident at Klerksdorp, and he appointed that man to occupy both posts, the post of district surgeon as well as that of Railway medical officer, simply because he was a Nationalist.

Since when does the Minister of the Interior appoint the Railway medical officers?

He made me resign, and I received a letter from his own secretary.

But the Minister of the Interior does not appoint the Railway medical officers.

Of course he acted in conjunction with the Minister of Railways and Harbours. That is clear from the fact that I received a letter from his secretary. These are facts which I am able to prove, and that is my reply to the Minister who is so proud of the justice of his appointments. I say that we cannot be proud enough of the way the Railways have been managed in these difficult times and conditions. They have managed things under the most difficult circumstances, in the best way possible. As the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) has already said, there are 600 locomotives in operation on the system today which should have been scrapped as long as five years ago. The management of the Railways is so good that they have kept those 600 locomotives going all that time. If those locomotives were to be scrapped we should lose their services. We are always being blamed for things done by hon. members opposite. I personally am very proud of the way our Railways in this country are managed.

I feel that a good case has been made out here today for a thorough enquiry. I think that we on this side of the House have put our case reasonably, fairly and moderately, and I trust that the Minister of Railways will give the proposal his most serious consideration and will not turn it down. We have supported our case point by point by producing facts. We are willing to go further than that but we do not want to do so at this stage. Because of our feelings and because of our consideration for the people concerned we would prefer the Minister to accept the motion and have a thorough investigation made. If the Government wants such a thorough investigation to go back as far as 1924, we would welcome it. That suggestion was made by an hon. member opposite and we are prepared to accept that challenge. The hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) can then come forward with his grievances.

His grievance is that he was appointed.

We are quite prepared to accept such an amendment to our motion; we are men enough to admit our mistakes. Let the other side do the same. Let the Government accept this motion; let it take up this challenge. It is a challenge to the Minister and to the Government. I do not believe that our Railways and our Railway Administration have on any previous occasion had their faults, their failings and their shortcomings brought to their notice in such an effective manner as we have done here today. We want the Minister to accept this motion so that this matter may be cleared up once and for all, and so that it will never be raised on the floor of this House again. We do not like mentioning the names of officials across the floor of this House. We dislike doing so, and it is much against our wish that we have had to do so, but we have been compelled to do it. Conditions have become so bad that we dare not allow the situation to develop any further. The Railway Service is getting into a state of rottenness. I do not believe that the Railway Service throughout its history has been in the state in which it is today. If it is a fact, as hon. members opposite want us to believe, that everything is in good order, why then do not they accept our motion? Surely that is the best certificate they can get from us. If everything is in perfect order they should accept the motion because after such an investigation we on this side of the House would no longer be able to cast any reflections at the Government. But we on our side say that the worst of it has not yet been told. We do not want to raise other matters now—we don’t want to continue bandying the names of officials across the floor of this House. We prefer to say: “Give us a commission of enquiry”. If the Government refuses to do so we shall continue criticising right until the very end. I want to point out that the Railway service cherished high expectations of the present Minister of Railways—both the staff and the public of South Africa, and even the Opposition, expected great things of him, but if things continue as they are doing now, and if the esteem in which the Minister is held continues to go down in the way it is doing now, then very soon it will reach low water mark. We can quite understand the Minister of Railways not having taken steps if he was not aware of the facts, but there is no longer any excuse for him. The facts are brought to his notice and we ask him as an honourable man, a man occupying a very responsible position, to meet us in this matter and give us this commission of enquiry. Let the investigation go back to 1924 or even as far back as 1910, if the Government wants it. If that is done we shall be in a position to see how it is that 80 per cent. of the senior officials are English-speaking and only 20 per cent. Afrikaans-speaking after 34 years of Union. I do not think that the position which we have put forward from this side of the House requires any further argument. Even the facts mentioned by the General Manager reflect the position. Nothing can condemn the position more effectively than the facts and the figures quoted by him: 80 per cent. of the senior officials are English-speaking and 20 per cent. are Afrikaans-speaking. That is what he states in his annual report, and I think verily that it is a public scandal that in the year of our Lord, 1944, thirty four years after the establishment of Union, 80 per cent. of the senior officials in the Railways are English-speaking while in the lower ranks 80 per cent. are Afrikaans-speaking and 20 per cent. English-speaking. We don’t want to go into all the methods which can be applied to prevent officials getting their promotion. There are numerous methods of doing so, and anyone with any knowledge of the Railway service knows that. We do not want to weary the House by going into that aspect, but this ridiculous condition of affairs which has been described here during this debate does not prevail in only one case but in tens of cases. If it pleases the House we could keep hon. members busy day after day, week after week and month after month, by quoting such cases, but the work of the House is more important than that. We simply say: “Appoint a commission of enquiry to assist the Minister to see the matter in its right perspective and to arrive at the truth.” If the Minister knows what the truth is he will take steps and he will not tolerate the things which are going on at present. No right-minded man can tolerate this condition of affairs. What the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition has told the House is perfectly true. Only, he did not go far enough, he did not point out that there are different kinds of “lifts”. The one goes faster than the other. There is also an express—the other lift is the ordinary kind and then one has the fast lift. I asked the Minister a question in order to get at the root of the evil. Let me tell the House what the root of the evil is. The root of the evil is the question of who has taken the second and third oath, and who has not. That is where the root of the evil lies. I asked the Minister to give us the names of the senior officials who had taken the second and the third oath, and the names of those officials who had not taken that oath. Surely the House is entitled to have that information. Now listen to the Minister’s reply—

It is a ridiculous business—

He is afraid of making those facts public, because if he does we shall be able to show the public very clearly what is the cause of all this trouble. If the Minister will be kind enough to give us all that information we shall later on prove by chapter and verse what is the cause of the grievances prevailing on the Railways. At this stage we only want to say this: We don’t want any lip language. We do not need any cheap advertisement to talk about the value of the work done by the Railway staff. If there is one set of people who have worked under difficult conditions, it is the Railway officials, and if there is a set of people whom the State can rightly be proud of, it is the Railway officials. And the people whom the Government can be very grateful to are the Afrikaans-minded Railway officials who under extremely difficult circumstances, of suspicion mongering and injustice, have done their work in the way they have done it. They were an example of what a loyal official should be. I admire them for having done their work in the way they have done it, and if there is any opportunity for promotion, that promotion should be given to the best qualified officials. That’s only fair and reasonable, but who decides now who is the most qualified official? Through what glasses is the matter looked at, and what is the measure used in arriving at a decision? What other factors are taken into account when a decision is arrived at? We have had the instance of an engineer being recommended by the Chief Civil Engineer for a particular post. Here was the case of a technical man who was recommended by another technical man. He recommended that man because he was of opinion that the man he recommended was the most competent person to do that particular technical work, but now we find that another man who has no conception of the technical nature of the work steps in, and another technical person who was junior to the other man is appointed. Now, where does the measure of judgment come in? It is an intolerable condition of affairs; it is all wrong. If ever there has been a prostitution of right and justice it is the way promotions are made in the service, and that is why we say that there is no conception of justice and fair play in this whole business. Who has to judge? The General Manager—I doubt whether any General Manager will ever dare write in his annual report what the present General Manager has written—the General Manager in his annual report stated that there was a Railway Services Commission. Give us a commission of enquiry and we shall show the Minister how that service commission does its work, and the extent to which it has become the rubber stamp of the General Manager. The qualifications of one of the members of that Service Commission have been gone into, and do hon. members know what was his highest qualification? That in the Anglo-Boer War he was a member of the Town Guard of Uitenhage! We do not want to refer to the Service Commission here; we would prefer not to do so, but conditions are becoming so intolerable that there will be an outburst unless we act as the mouthpieces of these people, and if we fail to do so we should be lacking in our duty. We feel that we are doing our duty to the Minister in drawing his attention to this matter. If he does not want to give it his attention, well, then we wash our hands of it, and the Minister gives us no option but to continue bringing matters of this kind to the notice of the House. We want to assure him that we are not going to slacken our efforts. I put a question to the Minister the other day regarding appointments and promotions in a few posts, especially in view of the allegation that posts were being graded up or down so that the post could be taken to the man and not the man to the post. The Minister told us that the work of the Secretary of the Railway Board had increased to such an extent and had become so much more important that he had been compelled to raise the grade of the post from £1,200 to £1,400. We don’t want to comment on that; we are prepared to accept that. The official whom he appointed to that post was the occupant of the post. He was in receipt of £1,200 and his salary was raised to £1,400. We have no fault to find with that. Within twelve months after that increase he was promoted again to the position of Divisional Manager in Pretoria, where he was paid £1,600 a year. We have no comment to offer on that. Now we come to his successor. The Minister said that his post was an important one, it had increased in importance, and the work had increased to such an extent that he was obliged to raise the post from £1,200 to £1,400. An official in the Railways drawing £1,400 is an official holding an important position. There are nine Divisional Managers and only three of the nine are in receipt of £1,400. They control a very considerable amount of the capital invested in that division. They control all the staff and they are responsible to the Administration and the public. Well, this particular position increased in importance to such an extent that the salary had to be raised from £1,200 to £1,400. But whom did the Minister select for that position, and what happened afterwards? He appointed a man who was only drawing £573 a year. And the post was brought down again from £1,400. The lift came down to the ground floor to pick up a candidate. That candidate was appointed to that position and was given a salary of £840. That was on the 1st October, 1941. He had to pass a probationary period of three months in his new post before his post could be confirmed, in terms of the regulations; but only a month afterwards, before he had passed his probationary period, on the 1st November, 1941, his salary was raised to £945. So after one month he got an increase of £105 per year, even before he had finished his probationary period. After that we had the elections. The Government asked the public to support its war policy and the Government secured a majority. On the 1st July, 1943, that post was increased to £1,200. The lift is only one step away from the top floor now. It only has to go up to £1,400. On the 1st September, 1939, that official was only drawing £573. On the 1st July, 1943, he got £1,200. In four years his salary was doubled. I don’t want to mention the names of these officials.

Will you tell me whether that was an English-speaking official?

If the Minister will tell me whether he had signed the Red Oath or not we shall be able to find out what is at the back of it all. The previous occupant of the post was appointed Divisional Superintendent in Pretoria as from the 17th November, but we find that the newcomer was actually occupying the post as from the 1st October. Six weeks before the one man vacated the position the other was appointed. So there were two occupants of the one post, both holding the same rank, and occupying that post simultaneously. Let hon. members talk of chaos in the service, and of malconditions! This was a state of chaos. I am only taking the particulars which the Minister himself has given us, and from those particulars it appears, as I have shown hon. members, that six weeks before the old occupant of the position left the post the newcomer was already occupying that post. It is something unprecedented in the Railway Service. I may tell hon. members that the official who is now drawing £1,200 per year joined the service in 1918. If people are to be promoted then every man who is entitled to promotion must be considered. The staff works hard and everybody wants promotion, and that being so promotion should be fairly distributed, so that every man who is entitled to promotion will get what he can justly claim. It is all wrong to select a few favourites just because they have taken a blue, or a red oath, or any other oath; just because they have sold their souls in doing so—it is all wrong to promote them quickly because they have taken an oath, as we have shown here. I don’t begrudge any man his promotion. It is no use the Minister saying there is no dissatisfaction in the service. Not only is there dissatisfaction but there is a sense of deep grievance, and a feeling of bitterness is being born. Certain officials are being favoured and others feel aggrieved. If there is money to be distributed, we are grateful for every penny that can be given to the Railway officials. The Railway officials are worthy of consideration, and the money given to them is money well invested. We have no objection to that. The Minister in reply to a question also told us that the Hours of Service Commission was appointed in April, 1942, to enquire into the hours of service of station masters and station foremen. So far no report has been received from that commission, but meanwhile there are men who have to work 10, 11 and 12 hours per day. The Minister will say that if a man works a 12 hour shift he gets a few hours in between for his dinner. That may be so on paper, but in actual fact he does not get those few hours in which to eat his dinner. Station foremen at one time could be kept on night duty throughout as there were only a few trains passing their stations at night, but since 1939 the train service has increased and the number of trains running during a shift have multiplied which means imposing a burden on the station foremen which they cannot bear. If the Railway Administration has money to distribute, let them give it to the Railway workers who earn those profits. I am telling the Minister that he is imposing a burden on their health which they cannot stand. The Minister has told us that there are 286 vacancies for station masters in the service. He told us that some of these vacancies have been open for six months, nine months, twelve months and even for longer than fifteen months. These people are losing seniority because the Administration does not appoint them. Here we have had an instance of a man being given priority because of his having being appointed too soon, while large numbers of station masters are losing seniority owing to an unforgivable delay in regard to their appointments. Why make fish of one and flesh of the other? Give us a commission of enquiry and let us satisfy the workers and show them that everything is in perfect order. Now let me come to another matter. The General Manager—and we assume the Administration—has now imported a principle which to our mind is a very dangerous one. The Administration has now proceeded to appoint a man whom they call “a Public Relations Officer”. They have appointed a man who has not had one day’s Railway service in the whole of his life. He was the correspondent of a political newspaper, or rather of a whole series of political newspapers. He has not seen a day’s Railway or public service in his whole life. He is appointed as Public Relations Officer at a salary of £1,200 per year. Imagine! A Public Relations Officer getting £1,200 per year without his having done a day’s Railway work in his life!

Whom is he a relation of?

He is a relation of the party.

If we have money to distribute why do not we distribute it among the Railway officials who have earned those profits. Why not give it to the shunters, conductors, stokers and the drivers, or the labourers, the shunter foremen? £1,200 per year! What for? What are this man’s duties, what are his responsibilities, what is he to do? He has to tell the public outside what is going on on the Railways and he has to explain and defend the Administration’s policy towards the staff. The Administration says “explain” but I say “defend,” because the Administration is on its defence and it will be placed on its defence more and more as time goes on. This official has to defend the Administration in the eyes of the public for the mess it has made of things, the mess in regard to booking of seats to give just one instance. That in itself is in a state of chaos. And now he has to try and maintain the Prime Minister’s reputation. Here we have a case of a political correspondent being appointed to a department of State to defend that Department of State before the public, and before the staff. If we carry that sort of thing to its logical conclusion every department of State should appoint a political correspondent to defend its actions before the public and before the staff. It is a dangerous precedent and the Minister should be very carefull lest he goes too far. The question we ask is: Why is it necessary to spend public money on a position of that kind? Is there no official in the Railway Service who is competent to undertake that work? I think it is a gross insult to the staff in the service of the Railways that somebody has to be picked up from outside to come and tell the public and the staff what the Administration’s policy is. The Administration must be in a very precarious position if it has to resort to such means to explain and defend its position. I want to go further. I say that the Administration should know that the service is seething with discontent. It cannot shut its eyes to that fact, it must know it, because it is there, and that feling of discontent is so pronounced that the Administration must realise it, and I assume the Administration is preparing for the day when the position will become intolerable for the workers, and that it is even now preparing to whitewash itself in the eyes of the public. I say it is a gross insult to the staff. The Railway Administration has in its service some of the best and most loyal officials in South Africa. It is a gross insult to pass over those officials and to appoint a man from outside at a salary of £1,200 per year, to do work of this kind. And I also think it is an insult to the officials who have been passed over, that the Administration has to appoint to a £1,400 position a man who has only been drawing half that—that it has to take that man and raise him up to draw this high salary. Where was the need to increase that post? What sound reasons were there, if there were any reasons at all, for the raising of that post in any way? If an official can satisfactorily perform the work in that position at half that salary, then where is the need for raising that post, where is the need for taking away the incumbent of the post after twelve months and to bring in another man from the very bottom? We do not begrudge any official a well earned increment, but we feel that an injustice is being done here which we can no longer tolerate, and we feel it is our duty to raise our voices against what has been going on. I just want to say this to the hon. the Minister: I again want to appeal to him seriously to consider accepting our motion. I want to appeal to him, before he decides to turn it down, to give it the most careful consideration because if he does not give us the opportunity of bringing out the truth by means of such a Select Committee, we shall raise the matter across the floor of this House.

I would like to ask the Minister of Railways whether he will favourably consider the question of rebuilding the Mowbray station. Mowbray today is, I suppose, the most important railway station of the Wynberg line. From Mowbray the bus route to the University starts, and there is also a bus route to Pinelands. Athlone, and various other places and it has become a very big station indeed. The original station building was put up something like 80 years ago, but to serve a little village of not more than a couple of hundred of people. Today Mowbray itself is a considerable town, and these other places served by bus from Mowbray are even bigger. It makes my heart bleed when I go past Mowbray by train, and I see the number of people who stand there in the big windswept square, waiting for their buses. There is one protection there a very small one, and certainly inadequate for the number of people who wait there for their buses in sun, wind and rain.

Are these Railway buses to which you refer?

No, they are not Railway buses, but they serve the railway station. With a big railway station like that, I think something of the kind should be done. I make this plea, and I hope that before long the Minister will put up a decent station at Mowbray, more in accordance with the times and with the large amount of traffic which goes through Mowbray. Then with regard to the amendment which has been moved today, one feels rather ashamed of one’s own country, when hon. members run down the exceedingly able man that we have sent to the North and when the very able engineer to whom reference has been made here, is spoken of as an engineer in Palestine. It sounds very infra dig indeed, and this gentleman, I am told, has been an outstandingly brilliant engineer. He has accomplished work in the Middle East which has astonished everyone. The very best engineers that the Americans could send, could not do the work which he performed in the time in which he put it through. He has completed the railway line from Palestine right up into Syria, and it is a line that hangs on the edge of the mountain. He has put it through in the least possible time and in the most efficient manner, and yet because this man is not thoroughly bilingual—I understand he is bilingual although he is spoken of as unilingual—he is taboo. He is an outstanding South African engineer, and yet because he has an English name—and a double-barrelled English name—he is taboo. It is about time that we understand that we are descended from two very fine nations and we are gradually being welded into one which I hope will be a very excellent nation, as it will have to be if it has to withstand the inroads which will be made in our spheres by the negro races as they become better educated. Although we are only a small nation, with a population of something like two million individuals in this huge continent of Africa, yet we are constantly trying to rend these two races apart. Surely the time has come when we must stop this petty talk. It almost makes one weep to hear some of the things which are said in this House. We have heard today from the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) something which I really cannot credit. The hon. member told us just now that no less than 80 per cent. of the senior appointments in the Railway service are held by English-speaking people. Why that should be wrong I do not know. But still he said that 80 per cent. of the senior officers in the service were English-speaking and that only 20 per cent. were Afrikaans-speaking. I do not think anything of those figures because after all the English are peculiarly fitted to run railways. They have a bent to run that sort of thing. [Laughter.] Hon. members may laugh, but the engineering profession has been brought to a higher standard by English-speaking people than by any other race.

Are they all engineers?

I cannot see what difference it makes whether that is the case or not, but I doubt those figures considerably. I was very interested in some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Vredefort. I belief he is an old railway man, and he certainly spoke very well indeed for the railwaymen. But for goodness’ sake why must the hon. member stress the racial question.

I did not stress the racial question once.

Yes, you did.

The hon. members must address the chair.

The hon. member spoke about 80 per cent. English-speaking senior officers and 20 per cent. Afrikaans-speaking officers, and I really take exception to those figures. It is an attempt to belittle the English-speaking people. Had it not been for the English-speaking people, where would the Railways have been today? Did they not start the Railways? Did they not start the Railways and teach the Afrikaans-speaking people their jobs? Without, those English people we never could have had the Railways as efficiently run as they are being run today. At the same time I must praise the Railway system very highly indeed for the work they have done during this war and the high efficiency they have shown when they have been brought into competition with other races in North Africa and Asia Minor. What has been accomplished by our South African railwaymen up North redounds to the glory of South Africa, but I am sorry that some of that glory should be belittled by hon. members in this House.

From this side of the House a very serious accusation has been levelled against the Minister of Railways. At the outset we had the spectacle of hon. members on the other side of the House attempting to defend him without success. I have in mind, for instance, the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) and the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley). They went outside their province to try to bolster up a weak case. They not only failed to defend it, but they succeeded in deepening the impression that a sorry state of affairs exists in the Railways. Now I turn to the hon. member for Moybray (Capt. Hare). We did not expect that the hon. member for Mowbray would stand up here and charge the Minister of Railways with racialism. The hon. member says whenever we on this side of the House rise to talk there is only one reason, and that is racialism. He says one may never mention the matter. If you say that today 80 per cent. of the senior posts are filled by English-speaking officials, then of course you are busy stirring up racialism. Here I have the report of the General Manager in my hand. It is the General Manager himself who reveals these things. So the hon. member is really charging the General Manger with racialism. I will just say this, that the hon. member for Mowbray is going still further. He declares that he does not believe the figures that the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) has quoted. He tells us that he does not believe them. It follows that he does not believe the official report of his own General Manager of Railways. I mention this merely to indicate the level to which a debate can sink when people are not in possession of the facts that refute such an allegation as this. The hon. member says that he does not believe these figures, but he adds that if they are correct he will ascribe it to the following: “The English are peculiarly fitted to run railways.” I hope now that the hon. member does not feel so foolish as he looks. Can you imagine a man getting up at this date and saying: “The English are peculiarly fitted to run the Railways.” Now it may be of course that we don’t accept this, but to afford him the opportunity of developing his thesis I challenge him to have an enquiry instituted; let them make an enquiry and determine whether “The English are peculiarly fitted to run the Railways.” We are prepared to incorporate that. If the hon. member proposes such an amendment we will accept it. I think that is about as far as we can go with the hon. member for Mowbray. A feeling of sympathy, of genuine sympathy welled up in me this afternoon. In this House one at times feels on top of the world and at other times down in the dumps. The hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) rose to offer proof of those things that had occurred under the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member felt bad after he finished. He felt so bad that he went out and he did not return. I will offer him this consolation. He should not really feel so bad. He did not compare unfavourably with the front benchers on his side of the House. I would just like to say this to the hon. Minister, the best defence of front benchers or back benchers or any other benchers.…

Or topsy-turvy benchers.

Or topsy-turvy benchers on the other side of the House—the best defence that they can set up is to say: Good, we shall have this enquiry instituted. I should like to ask them why they are not prepared to accept that excellent basis for a defence, and this is not the first time that this question has been discussed in the House. For the last few years this question of a growing feeling of dissatisfaction amongst the Railway staff has been discussed in the House. First, it is the personnel; then it is the grievances against the Administration; then it is in connection with associations in the Administration; but year after year we have warned the Minister, and we have told him that there is a growing feeling of dissatisfaction amongst the Railway employees. Whether the hon. Minister admits it or not, the most effective way in which he can repudiate this charge is for him to stand up and say frankly: “Good, I shall have an impartial enquiry instituted.” I think the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) was right. He said that the Minister was not going to grant this enquiry. What is the conclusion that any sober-minded person must draw from that. The conclusion is this, he is afraid to have such a commission of enquiry appointed. [Laughter.] When I see the hon. member then I am reminded of a person who is passing a graveyard, and he starts whistling because he is afraid that he will imagine he would hear someone else whistling. What is the impression that people outside must obtain in connection with Railway employees? This afternoon in this House a very serious accusation was made involving the Minister of Railways, the General Manager of Railways and certain high officials in the Administration. If they have not the manliness to get up and say: “Good, come on with that enquiry,” then there is only one conclusion that the public and the Railway officials will be driven to, and that is that the intrigue that has today been unearthed is not even half of the story. They are afraid about the other half that would come out if they grant an enquiry. That is the only logical conclusion. What is the hon. Minister’s answer going to be? I assume that he will refuse this commission of enquiry, but he will still, as Minister, have to answer this debate. I will predict what his answer will be. He will give a whole series of cases, and just as the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) has done, they will all be cases which are not analogous with the cases mentioned by this side of the House. This, at any rate, was the procedure he followed last year, and that will also be his way of doing things now. He will divert attention from the allegations in respect of which chapter and verse have been mentioned in this House. Whether one wants it or not the general public are under the impression that things are happening inside the service which are wrong, and in order to shift the blame from their shoulders there is only one course open for them, and that is to have a commission of enquiry appointed, no matter from what year it starts, and let us decide on this question who is responsible for this maladministration if there has been maladministration. Serious accusations have been made here, and I predict that the Minister, when he replies to this debate, will preserve silence over the worst cases. He will again say in his speech: “I shall refer to that in due course,” without ever coming to it. We have seen that sort of thing in the past. I want to say this this afternoon in all seriousness. The Minister of Railways has received a legacy in the Railways. When he took over as Minister of Railways there was a feeling of contentment amongst the Railway employees. There was more. There were great expectations in regard to the Minister. I would like to tell the Minister now that that feeling of contentment has been languishing more and more, and in its place is arising this sense of grievance. I would just like to say this to the hon. Minister: There is a need in the service, and especially in the Railway service, and it is something that you must get if you want good work from your Railway employees—you must create a good relationship as between the worker and his work. He must have his heart in his work. I maintain that no railway employee can have his heart in his work if every day he is nursing a grievance. Whether those allegations are well founded or not this sense of grievance will appear in a thousand ways in the country unless the Minister accepts this proposition today, unless he agrees to have this enquiry instituted. I will leave this matter there, but I wish to make one further point to the Minister, and that is this. I want to submit it to him and to all hon. members in this House. It is the keynote of the grievances that have cropped up year after year in connection with our personnel in the public service. Right through all these years—Hansard bears witness—we have to fight it out on the floor of this House, yard by yard, in connection with the injustice towards Afrikaans-speaking people in that service. Just mention a single instance where such debates in this House have been based on an injustice to English-speaking public servants. Right through All these years—Hansard is witness—year after year we have had this fight in connection with the injustice done to Afrikaans-speaking public servants. Just mention one instance where there has been a debate from 1910 till today over an injustice towards English-speaking public servants. I challenge hon. members on the other side of the House to mention such instances. Why must the injustice always happen to one section, and why must we always have to fight yard by yard for the rights of the Afrikaans-speaking public servants? I should like to say this to the Minister, and it is a fact that is stated in the report of the General Manager of Railways, that in the worst and lowest paid posts of the Railway service you will find not English-speaking but only Afrikaans-speaking employees. All the way through it is they who are thwarted so that they cannot gain promotion, but still it is those people who perform the work and deliver the goods. It is not those who are “so peculiarly” adapted for Railway work who get through the work, but it is these people. Now I should like to say a few words in connection with another matter, and that is also a matter of great general interest. I want to ask the Minister to go to the Cape Town station, to the main line platform—there he will find eleven men cooped up in a small place—the shunters who have to work there. Just let the Minister go and have a look at the conditions under which these people have to work. The Minister has had the portfolio of Railways for a considerable time, and the position has always been the same. I should like to make quite clear what the position is. In a small cabin—I have measured it, and it is 5 ft. by 10 ft.—there are 11 shunters, three foremen and eight shunters, and they relieve each other in eight-hour shifts At every changeover there must be three shunters simultaneously on duty in the cabin. They remain there for eight hours, they have to eat and rest there; those who are off duty have to wash there, and the whole cabin is 5 ft. by 10 ft. For all these eleven people there are only two lockers where they can put their food and their raincoats. There is no proper place for them to go and wash before they eat. To wash they have to go along to the tap where every skolly comes along to drink. This matter has been brought to the attention of the Minister on several occasions. The reply has always been that there is no more room, no more accommodation. Just let me say this, that only a few paces from this place there is a space 24 ft. by 10 ft. and there—within reach of these men’s work—there is a single advertisement, that for Cavalla cigarettes. Cannot that advertisement be removed in order to provide proper accommodation for the shunters. Let them at least feel that while they are in the employ of the Railway Administration they will be in a position to live and to do their work decently like Europeans. I bring this matter again to the attention of the Minister. The Minister has been travelling around a great deal, sometimes by train, sometimes by air. Whenever he travels around he attends functions, and he discourses on the future of the Railways, over the stylish saloon coaches that we shall have after the war, over the electrification of railways—yes, he dreams wonderful dreams. Let me just remind the Minister that the best legacy he can leave to his successor is a happy and contented Railway staff who have their heart in their work, and have their minds at ease. Why does he not say something about that? With the war railway extension has practically come to a standstill. Many parts of our country are calling aloud for development. How is it that the construction of new lines has not been proceeded with? Naturally, the reply can be made that the war is still going on. That is the first consideration. But when the Minister travels round let him tell the people that the extension of the line from Koffiefontein to Jacobsdal will be proceeded with.

What about Waterberg.

Let him tell us something for the benefit of the people of Waterberg who are so anxious to have a branch line. There is, however, another serious matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister, and that is in connection with the suburban trains here in the Cape Peninsula. Nor is this trouble confined to the Cape Peninsula; it extends as far as Somerest West and Stellenbosch. The general foundation of our policy in South Africa as regards the Railways is that we differentiate between Europeans and non-Europeans, and that we do not permit the mixing of European and non-European passengers. I will candidly admit that there was a certain measure of departure from this principle under previous Ministers. This is not the first time that this matter has been brought to the notice of a Minister of Railways in this House. But the evil grows from day to day, and it has now reached the stage when you can never be at ease when you enter a first-class compartment. You do not know who is going to sit alongside you the next minute. This is a serious matter and I should like the Minister to direct his attention to it. Why is it that we cannot have separate coaches; then the coloured person would know where his coach was and the European would know where he should go to travel in peace. Why must there be all this unpleasantness in the railway coaches on account of this mixed travelling? The natives and the coloured people buy first-class railway tickets, and neither the ticket examiner nor anyone else can get them out of the compartment. This mixed travelling on the Railways will yet be a curse to our people. In other large cities such as Johannesburg, Pretoria and Bloemfontein, where there are also suburbs, this sort of thing is not allowed. I want to ask the Minister whether he approves this state of affairs. I hope that he understands my Afrikaans. He introduced his address in Afrikaans, and so I hope that he understands. Does the Minister wish this condition of affairs to continue? If so we shall have to get rid of him as Minister. If this has not got his approval, let him see to it that the Cape Peninsula becomes as clean in this respect as other large towns. The number of natives is rapidly increasing in the town. There has been a large influx to the Cape Peninsula from the Transkei and other districts. The figures that have been given to us indicate that there are no fewer than 60,000 natives in Cape Town and the vicinity. Where you have the native population growing at this pace the problem will become more and more difficult. The result will be that a respectable European will no longer be able to use the Railways. It is an evil that is growing, and I want to ask the Minister to give his serious consideration to it.

I must apologise to the hon. member who has just sat down for having risen to speak before he had finished, but I was under the impression for the moment, when he had for the third time said that he had made his last point, that he had concluded his address. I might have known from previous experience that the hon. member allows the clock rather than the strength of his arguments to determine the measure of his eloquence in this House. I do want to join issue with the hon. member with regard to his adopting the figures of the General Manager’s report and misquoting—if misquoting is the term that can be applied. In following his Leader the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) appeared to feel that he was not satisfied with the running of our transportation system, and perhaps he will induce the country to accept his alternative method of transportation, and lead the people in an enormous pioneer trek through the Union of South Africa. It will not be quite so expeditious as the Railways, although the hon. member will no doubt derive a fair amount of advertisement from it. Let me deal with the facts. The point has been made by the hon. members opposite that 80 per cent. of the officials holding high positions on the Railways are English-speaking and 20 per cent. Afrikaans-speaking. Surely the hon. member knows why these figures were introduced into the General Manager’s report. He has not told the House that in his report the General Manager deplored the fact. The names of English-speaking unilingual officials were bandied about the floor of the House as though the hon. members sitting on the back benches were in a better position to determine the worth and efficiency of the staff than the General Manager. It was because the General Manager of Railways deplored the fact that the names of his officers were dragged about the floor of the House and in an endeavour to estimate their services to the Railway Administration he stated that those holding the higher positions were 80 per cent. English-speaking and that only 20 per cent. Afrikaans-speaking were holding these responsible positions on the Railways. That is no reflection on the English-speaking members of the staff. The General Manager never said, nor should hon. members infer, that those 80 per cent. were unilingual, or that those 80 per cent. did not hold the bilingual qualification and certificate and have it recorded that they were perfectly bilingual.

I never said that.

No, but that was the inference, and it was particularly so in the case of the remarks made by the hon. member for Vredefort. He did say so and he inferred it. Can any hon. member suppose that the two Assistant Managers, Mr. Steyn and Mr. Du Plessis are unilingual, and that they were Afrikaans-speaking, but they are as bilingual as I am, and as good in English as I am. And those two officials figure in that proportion of 20 per cent. I think the time has come when we should definitely stop this pinpricking in racialism. After all, the General Manager of Railways is in control of the largest organisation of employees in South Africa, and it is his duty and responsibility to ensure that the country gets the maximum amount of efficiency from the responsible officials of the Railways, and he under the direction of the Minister of Transportation addresses himself to that task. I know, as a fact, and the hon. member for Vredefort knows probably also as a fact, that it was the practice of some English-speaking people prior to the last war (1914-1918) and prior to Union, to come to this country and to take up appointments in the Railway, for the simple reason that they were well qualified. These people are probably today reaching the age of retirement, and it is unlikely that at any future time will there be so great a proportion as 80 per cent. of the officials of the South African Railways Administration, whose mother tongue is English. But I venture to say that at least 60 per cent. of that 80 per cent. do hold the bilingual certificate and are proficient in Afrikaans. We do know also that it was some time back the practice of Afrikaans-speaking South Africans not to seek employment in the Railway Administration, nor for that matter to go into commerce. But more recently the Afrikaans-speaking youth of the country have not only entered commerce and taken up the professions, including law and medicine, but have found their way into higher commercial positions and into the Railway Administrative staff as well. I venture to suggest that that has been a direct result of Union, and the result of fostering a spirit of unity and unanimity between the two races. It is a result of that intelligent policy which has brought English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking children together in schools. That policy has opened up wider possibilities to the Afrikaans-speaking youth, which prior to Union and prior to the last war were denied to them. It is the policy of the country today to have the education of our youth in both official languages. That has always been to the benefit and advantage of the Afrikaans-speaking child; Union has afforded him the opportunity of becoming as proficient in English as an English-speaking person. As the direct outcome of the fostering of this spirit of bilingualism many Afrikaans-speaking people have been brought into the professions, into commerce, into the civil service, and into the Railway Administration. I welcome that. I do not sit down and go through the various appointments at the head of the civil service, or at the head of the various administrations to try to find men with English-speaking names, nor do I say that by virtue of the fact that a man has an English name, he is better able to run the Railways than anyone else. I do not go nearly as far as the hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Hare), but I do say this, that that percentage of 80 per cent. is probably due to the fact—and the explanation has been repeatedly given on the floor of the House—that the Railway Administration, by virtue of sheer necessity had to import English-speaking people with a knowledge of Railway work in order to assist in the running of the Railways in this country. And I maintain that it is not in the interests of South Africa, nor is it conducive to the growth of a proper spirit amongst the members of the staff that hon. members should suggest that the assumption from the General Manager’s report in regard to the system managers with Afrikaans names, are unilingual; they are as bilingual as anybody and probably more efficient in the English language than I am myself. Nor are the hon. members who have brought these officials into the controversy doing a service to them. Surely hon. members opposite do not want us either now or in the remote future to lay down a policy for the Administration that whenever an appointment is made of an English-speaking official that a corresponding appointment should be made of an Afrikaans-speaking official, and that in the same way when an Afrikaans-speaking member of the staff is given a senior appointment, that an English-speaking official should be given corresponding promotion. Such a policy of having an equal number of appointments of officials with English names and Afrikaans names would be the damanation and ruination of any possible spirit of reconciliation, and would be fatal to the paramount policy of running this Railway Administration on sound and proper lines. I do venture to say that these very men on whose behalf the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) has moved for the appointment of this Select Committee, will not thank him for it. He hopes, as he has hoped ever since he has been out of power, to foment a spirit whereby one section of the community will look with distrust and misgiving on the other section. I have been privileged to sit in this House when the hon. member was. Minister of the Interior, and when questions were asked of him probably by Jingo Englishmen as to how many English-speaking people had been given appointments in one department or another. The hon. gentleman then laid it down as axiomatic of his administration that merit would count. I know, of course, that the then Minister of Agriculture laid down that all things being equal, politics would decide promotions. But I feel sure that the hon. member for Piquetberg will be prepared to support in principle the policy which he adumbrated when he was a responsible Minister of the Government. No other policy can be justified in this country, and I am living in hope of seeing the day, and I trust that it will not be in the too remote future, when we in South Africa will be able to accept without reservation as a wise and sound policy that, that person shall be awarded the post who is best qualified for it, on his merits and quite irrespective of the fact whether he happens to have an English or an Afrikaans name. Now, Sir, the hon. member for Boshof has touched on one point that I should like to take up. I am pleased then that he did not sit down when I got up before he had concluded, otherwise he would not have been able to make this attack on the Railway Administration for not having made an even greater measure of discrimination and segregation between Europeans and non-Europeans who travel on our Railways. We know, and the Minister of Railways has informed us, that his passenger traffic and his passenger trains could not possibly be run at the reasonable fares for which first and second class passengers were conveyed, were it not for the tremendous revenue that is derived from third class passengers. Let me remind the hon. member for Boshof of what the General Manager of Railways and the Minister have repeatedly told us, that the first and second class passengers are an indulged section of the community.

Do you want to extend this practice all over the country?

I am coming to that, and I follow your point. Were it not for the revenue received from third class passengers, the first and second class passengers could not get those facilities that they get now, nor could they travel on the fares they are charged at present. My objection to the Railway Budget is based on rather different grounds. I have always objected, since I have been in this House, that the Minister of Railways can ask for a grant of so many millions of pounds, and this House in the space of a few hours, votes him all the millions he wants. He usually has had to listen to one or two or perhaps three members of the House who specialise on the working of the Railways, and who are able to ask him certain questions about policy. But this House has no control whatever over the policy of the Railway Administration. We must vote the money. We vote him his supply, but the House never at any time enters into consideration of his ways and means. For that purpose, and for that purpose alone, is due the creation of the Railway Board, and it is the Railway Board with the Minister of Railways and the General Manager of Railways who determine how the Minister is going to obtain the revenue to meet the services which the House has approved.

Whom are they responsible to?

I have never been able to find out. I will say this however, that the practice has worked remarkably well.

For you, yes.

Yes, and for you, when you were in power for fourteen years. In the case of the Minister of Railways the House does not follow the procedure that is adopted with the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance comes into this House and we discuss supply and we vote him his supply. Then he comes to us in regard to ways and means, and he has to justify to this House how he is going to raise the revenue to meet the services which have been approved by the House. The Railway Administration never does that. Therefore it has never been open to us to question the Minister of Railways as to whether Tariff A, Tariff B or Tariff C, or as to whether the preferential rates for South African manufactured produce, or that this, that and the other is in our interests, and the best policy for the country. But the General Manager of Railways has been chosen, as his predecessors were chosen, to fill the post by virtue of the fact that he has the entire confidence of this country. These general managers have been selected for their exceptional ability. They have reached the position of General Manager not because they were the oldest servants in the Administration at the time, but for sheer ability. The present General Manager jumped over the heads of quite a lot of people when he was appointed to the position. But I venture to suggest that he has proved since he has filled that post, that he has definitely justified the selection that was made, and the compliment that was paid him when he was promoted over the heads of a number of these so-called English-speaking South Africans who had a long term of service with the administration. The hon. member for Boshof claims that it is in the interests of South Africa to impose a greater measure of segregation on the various suburban lines so as to prevent some of his European friends coming into contact with non-Europeans. Presumably his friends are people who travel first class, or if they do not travel first class, they probably travel second class. Let me say this to the hon. member: In South Africa there can be no such thing as segregation.

Do you want to extend this practice?

I say this, that the hon. member, like every other hon. member in this House, or any other man who lives in the country, does not object to his wife or himself or any of his household sitting with his own servants. The hon. member knows that it is the practice for one of his coloured servants—and rightly so—to drive his family—his female relatives, to the nearest town, they do it day in and day out.

And do you want to extend that?

They attend to them in the most intimate and happy way. There is no child brought up in the Hinterland who has not got a coloured nurse.

That is not correct either.

The principle is that hon. members do not object to this class of intimate association with their native servants, but they object to a close—not so close, not so intimate—relationship with my coloured servant. My coloured servant is just as good as the hon. member’s coloured servant. His coloured servant can sit and associate with his friends and relatives, but mine may not do so. We are talking absolute nonsense.

I quite agree with you.

It is prejudice from the word go, and I am sorry that owing to the bombastic and boisterous manner with which these prejudices are put forward to the Railway Administration, that they have in effect established such a principle and such a policy. The Minister may not know it but the General Manager knows it, that he dare not introduce a policy in black and white establishing such a principle of segregation. He knows that if I want to send my servant or anyone any respectable coloured woman, from here say to Clanwilliam, she can travel first class, she is entitled to purchase a first class railway ticket, and she is entitled to ride in a first class carriage as far as Klaver. But when she gets out at Klaver, and the weather is wet, there is a bus, a Railway motor bus—whose service we finance here—and the moment that respectable coloured woman gets out at Klaver she may not get into the first class portion of that Railway bus, she is forced to ride with the goats and the oranges and the manure, and if it is raining she can either stand or sit on the sacks of fertiliser or manure. I know of instances which I have brought to the Department’s notice, but this is generally accepted as a matter of policy. They say they cannot do anything else. They say they dare not extend to coloured persons the ordinary facilities, although they cannot lay it down in their regulations. If they did deny these people the ordinary facilities, and if they did lay it down in the regulations, it would be declared ultra vires. These things have been held ultra vires in the past. I venture to speak on behalf of these people who are forced to suffer these indignities, not at the hands of the Railway Administration but at the hands of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) and other hon. members who are quite prepared to associate with the coloured drivers when those drivers took them from Cape Town to Durban.

Don’t talk nonsense.

Now the hon. member for Boshof said that many Railway servants were living in hovels. I admit that they are, because they cannot afford to live in anything but hovels. I say that the pay given to the non-European members of the Railway Administration is a scandal, and I say that the sooner this House attempts to assume one of its responsibilities and lays down that a certain rate of pay shall apply to these people, the better. The Minister knows that no coloured man can get a graded position in the Railway service today. The Minister knows that the Railway service is shut to any coloured artisan. He knows that the coloured man performs great services to the country, and to the Railway Administration, yet the coloured man has never been adequately paid for what he does. The inadequacy of the wages on the Railways, the inadequacy of Railway housing, is a crying shame. The Railway Administration employs these people, and takes from them the best they have to give but gives them even less than the wage determination laid down by the Government in respect of non-Europeans in other industries. Until the Railway Department is prepared to accept the policy which I have been pleading for, there can be no foundation for any social security either for the Europeans or the non-Europeans. We must accept as fundamental that what the Government determines shall be the measure of reward paid by outside employers, shall be accepted as the very minimum remuneration for their own employees. Until that comes about you will never find any hope in the hearts of these people who are serving the Railway Administration. There are more non-Europeans in the employ of the Administration than there are Europeans. All the plums are kept for the Europeans. We know that even today, if a particular position held by a particular man in the Service for some years, happens by virtue of the policy of the Administration to become a graded post, despite the fact that the incumbent of that post has done the work attaching to that post for five, ten or fifteen years, the moment it becomes graded, the moment it commands a higher remuneration, that man is called upon to produce a birth certificate to entitle him to be promoted to the permanent service. I have known people who have been casuals for twenty years or more.

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 was adjourned; to be resumed on 21st February.