When the proceedings were interrupted yesterday I was trying to explain how the Railways were being practically exploited for political propaganda, and for the purpose of looking for jobs for pals. I went back to the year 1896 when the language on our Railways in the Transvaal was exclusively High Dutch. I also went back to the year 1902 to point out that the language on those self same Railways was then exclusively English, and I referred to information and facts mentioned by hon. members of the Opposition themselves, which show that we have progressed so far that we now have 80% Afrikaans-speaking Railway workers as against 20% English-speaking Railway workers. That is the development which has taken place over the past few years. Now I want to say that if the Railways are dislocated it will be a serious calamity to the country. I referred yesterday to 1914, when there was a strike in the. Transvaal and the Railways came to a dead stop—at any rate, to a certain extent, for a few days. Hon. members have spoken about discrimination. An hon. member opposite got up here yesterday and tried to tell us that certain people had been dismissed from the Railway service because they belonged to the wrong party or because they belonged to the Afrikaans-speaking section. The hon. member would not mention names, but he referred to such cases. He went so far as to say that the country would have ample revenue if only the Government allowed the Namaqualand diamond fields to be exploited. Now I should like to say a few words about this alleged discrimination, and I want to put a question to hon. members opposite. They have been strutting about Cape Town, and have drawn attention to the Cape Town railway station. Well, I have been to the Cape Town railway station and let me tell the House what my experience was, and then I want to ask hon. members whether that is discrimination. I went to the office of the System Manager to get some small question fixed up, and to my surprise I found that everybody there spoke Afrikaans. But I don’t want to confine myself to Cape Town. Let me take the Transvaal, the province I come from. I want to refer to the System Manager of the Transvaal. I am not ashamed to mention his name, I am referring to Mr. Vlijoen. That System Manager, who is 100% Afrikaans-speaking, has a staff which is a hundred percent Afrikaans-speaking. Is that discrimination? Is it right to talk of discrimination when people of that type are appointed by the Railways? No; I do not think the Railway staff deserve to be criticised by hon. members of the Opposition in that way, and I do not think it is right for hon. members opposite to make charges of discrimination. If we want to look for trouble, we need not just go to the Department of Railways. If we want to look for trouble we can find it in every department. For instance, we can go to the Department which deals with old age pensions. If we go to the Department of Lands, or any other Department we will be able to find some trouble. But I am one of those people who believe that we will have trouble on earth until the end of time. Now, I want to tell the House about an instance which to my mind constitutes a case of discrimination. After I had been elected to Parliament I drove by a car to Groblersdal one day. On the road I came across the Railway bus. That bus had turned off the road and offloaded its goods on the veld. I passed the bus, and I stopped, and I thought I should ask whether I could give some assistance. There was the bus 15 or 20 miles away from the nearest telephone and I considered it my duty to ask whether I could help. I got out of my car, I walked up to the bus. I found the Railway staff inside the bus—they were sitting down and having dinner. I very politely said, “Good afternoon, people,” but I got no reply. They did not even bother to greet me. Even then I said: “Friend, is there anything I can do for you?” To this day I have not had a reply. That I look upon as discrimination. Those people knew that only a few weeks ago the majority of the voters had elected me to Parliament, they knew where I was going, but they discriminated against me and would not even talk to me.

Shame!

Yes, let me go on. Let me refer to our little village of Bronkhorstspruit. In Bronkhorstspruit we find that the Railway bus staff won’t even look at us if we belong to the S.A. Party. Is not that discrimination?

You have learnt a new word.

No, we should leave these things alone and not indulge in debates of that kind. Let us rather talk here of the value the Railways are to this country. And now I want to touch on a few points which more particularly affect the Transvaal and my constituency. I want to mention instances. I want to refer to Pienaars River and Marble Hall. Tremendous development has taken place there since the Railway was built to that area. The value of the land in those areas has gone up tremendously, and it is due to the Railways that the value has gone up like that. Were it not for the Railways that development would never have taken place. I am sorry hon. members of the Opposition have never seen that part of the world, because if they had they would have seen that the Minister of Railways has every right to come before this House with his Part Appropriation Bill. Tremendous development has taken place at Loskop, but it is not only Loskop which has developed so much; the whole of that area has developed. The products of the farmer are speedily taken to the markets today. Take for instance the milk, which is brought from the Springbok Flats now-a-days to Pretoria and Johannesburg. We have great development there for which we must thank the Railways. Hon. members may say that that development dates back many years. I admit that. I want to go back for a moment to 1909 when we had a 2 ft. gauge railway line from Pienaars River to Settlers. Let me give hon. members some idea of what the conditions were in those days. If one travelled by train over that line, and a pig jumped off the train, one had to get off the train and help catch the pig; if one did not do so the train could not go on.

There was no discrimination against the pig.

We owe it to the Department of Railways that we have had this development; we have the Iron and Steel Factory in Pretoria today. The Iron and Steel Factory gives employment to hundreds and thousands of young Afrikaners, and what would the position of our Afrikaners have been today if the Railways had not been there to carry the raw materials? These concerns have developed and are still developing. At Kaalfontein there is an institute today, the corner stone of which was laid by the Minister. The surface area of that institute is not just a few morgen but hundreds of morgen. I believe the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) was also present when the corner stone was laid and he will be able to testify to the fact that all went well on the day the corner stone was laid. After the Minister had laid the corner stone, and after the General Manager had made his speech, both in Afrikaans and in English, speeches were made by representatives of all sections, but not a word was said about discrimination. The only people who could claim discrimination was myself.

They “discriminated” you.

I am convinced that that development is also due to the Railways. Of course, there are certain minor things which have to be rectified. I myself even, when I arrived here, brought certain matters to the notice of the Railway authorities and I have their reply in my drawer. I want to ask my hon. friends not to raise all their little troubles in this House. Let them first of all see whether the Railway authorities cannot solve their difficulties. There are many serious difficulties in regard to housing and so on, but are the Railway authorities to blame for that? My hon. friends say that they are against the war. Well, we know they are against the war. They need not tell us so. The war movement has caused matters to develop so rapidly at Zonderwater that difficulties have been experienced there, but those difficulties are not the fault of the Railway Department, and those things are put right from time to time. Then there is the question of leave, but all these small things are rectified. If one wants to nose around one can always find mistakes, and one can always make political capital out of things, but I don’t think it is the Opposition’s duty to do things like that. Let them be their age, and leave these small things alone. In conclusion, I want to address a few words to the Minister. I have heard a whisper that the Minister intends abolishing the name of Kaalfontein in connection with that institute. As a man who was born in that area, and as a man knows the value of that name, I want to appeal to the Minister to reconsider the matter before changing the name of Kaalfontein, because Kaalfontein is an historical name. In the olden days when the Railways were still a Hollands Company, all the stations were named “Fontein”. Every name ended with “Fontein”, and the Hollanders used to say that in spite of the name “Fontein” people living in those areas died of thirst. It is an old historical name, and we want that name to continue, and that is why I want to plead with the Minister to reconsider the matter before changing it, but if he cannot do so, well, we won’t regard it as discrimination.

I had the pleasure during the week of interviewing the Minister along with other members of the House in connection with the rates of wages paid to non-European labourers and particularly unskilled labourers, and having seen the Minister I don’t think I should deal with what the deputation dealt with on that occasion, except to say that there is a principle involved which applies to all other sections of the Railways and Harbours Administration. That is the principle, which I have no doubt all members are in complete agreement with, that the rates of wages paid by the Railways and Harbours Administration should be in line with and compare favourably with the rates of pay which are paid in private industry and commerce. Just before the general election—and I don’t know whether the general election was the explanation of the fact—a circular was sent out to the intermediary classes of Railway employees, checkers and such like—and this circular had to be treated by the employees with a tremendous degree of secrecy. They are not permitted to show it to their public representatives. In a public institution, in public administration, I submit that there should be complete freedom to any employee of the State, and he should be able to disclose to any member of the public and to any publicly elected representative, any communication made to him, and he should be able to disclose the conditions under which he and his colleagues work. Another matter which should be rectified is in regard to the higher paid employees in the artisan staff who under the Administration are governed in the same way as those employees who come under the Controller of Manpower outside the Administration. Now the conditions of these employees are not the same as the conditions prevailing in outside trades coming under the Controller of Manpower, and while I would be the last to urge that the conditions of service in the Railways and Harbours should be exactly the same as those of artisans under the Controller of Manpower who have to work 54 hours per week, I want to say that the Railway Administration cannot have it both ways. If the employees in the service are not given the same conditions as those who come under the Controller of Manpower outside the Railways and Harbours service, then the Administration cannot argue that these men come under the Controller of Manpower, and the Administration will only be able to retain their staff if they succeed in keeping that staff contented with their conditions of their employment. But now we have this position, that if those servants want to leave the Administration, they are not at liberty to do so. My submission is that if those servants want to leave the Administration they should be at liberty to do so, and on leaving they should be given a clearance certificate. There have been cases where the Controller of Manpower has been quite prepared to give employment to people outside the Railway Administration, in concerns falling under him, but he cannot do so without a clearance from the Railway Administration. The Controller of Manpower is loath to give employment to a person in private occupation unless that person brings with him a certificate of clearance from the Railways and Harbours Administration. Another suggestion I think the House will agree with and which should be urged on the Minister is that in all spheres of occupation the Government should see to it that the conditions and the rates of pay laid down are even better than those in outside trade. I am convinced that in many spheres of the Administration of the Railways and Harbours there is considerable dissatisfaction with the rates of pay. That, of course, is due in some respect to general factors outside the control of the Administration; it is due to the fact that costs of living continue to rise, and that in itself brings in its train certain dissatisfaction, but I am satisfied that at no tme has the dissatisfaction reached the level which it has reached today due to the unsatisfactory rates of pay, and I suggest that the Minister of Railways along with other State Departments should see to it that the rates of pay paid to State employees compare favourably with those paid outside the Administration. I propose now to deal with the question of the Durban Harbour, a question which seriously affects the people of Durban. Fortunately the black-out has been lifted. For the moment it may seem that this has not much to do with the Railway, but I want to illustrate how the people of Durban are concerned. From time to time the people of Durban have urged the raising of the black-out because they were not satisfied that it served any useful purpose. There is no doubt that the people of Durban, along with others, were perfectly prepared to suffer any form of hardship in the way of blackouts if they were convinced that it was necessary, and the reason why the people of Durban were not convinced of the necessity for a black-out was because while their own streets had to be blacked-out and they had to suffer these disabilities yet in the Harbour areas, and the Dock areas—the most vital points with which the enemy would concern itself—were just ablaze with light.

Bring that up on the Defence Vote, not on this.

I am not directly concerned with who is responsible, all I am concerned with is that the Docks were ablaze with light, and the Dock area would be the very point of attack by the enemy. The people of Durban in the absence of any military information could not judge of the necessity for a black-out and even now, when it has been lifted, it still remains an abstract question whether the black-out should ever have been imposed. But in the main the public at large are usually sound in their judgment. The only occasions when I find the public at fault in their judgment is when due to particular factors, perhaps under the pressure of vested interests and under the persuasion of the press, they are inclined to take up an attitude contrary to their ordinary run of good judgment. Now, in Durban, there is a Harbour Advisory Board. That Board in its dealings and relations to the development of the Harbour has imposed upon it a condition of complete silence. We have on that Board representatives of the City Council of Durban. These representatives of public institutions are bound to silence after they have discussed matters on the Harbour Advisory Board Committee. No one questions the need for preserving secrecy on military questions as they affect the Harbour of Durban, but I submit that there are many things discussed by the Harbour Advisory Board in relation to the development of the Durban Harbour, which is the main artery of Durban, through which all the life blood of Durban flows, which the public are entitled to know—the public are entitled to know what goes on in regard to the future development of the Harbour, they are entitled to know what those future developments are likely to be, what shape they are taking, but with that imposition of silence on the members, and in the absence of any knowledge, in the absence of any information being conveyed through the Press, in the complete absence of public criticism, I say the position is unsatisfactory and that it is harmful to Durban, and I say that like the black-out, the imposition of silence on the members of the Durban Advisory Board should be lifted. It can be left to the commonsense of the members of the Board to know what are military secrets, what should and what should not be conveyed outside, and I am convinced that the members have that standard of intelligence that they would not repeat outside anything of a military or secret nature, or anything which would benefit the enemy. And if it is necessary for secrecy to be maintained on any particular point, a decision can be arrived at at the meetings of the Board. The members representing the City Council should be at liberty to report to the institutions which have sent them there what has transpired so that the public’s critical mind can have some knowledge of the future development of Durban’s Harbour. Now the Durban City Council has spent a considerable amount of time a considerable amount of energy, and no doubt a considerable amount of money, on drafting post-war plans of development. I doubt if any other Municipality has spent the same amount of time and energy on drawing up a post-war programme. In the main, it is the Government which makes promises to the people of South Africa—promises of post-war security, of protection.…

And on the native question, too.

Yes, on the native question, too.

The hon. member must come back to the motion before the House.

Yes, sir, I am dealing entirely with the manner in which subordinate bodies have to implement the pledges of the Government, and I am particularly dealing with the Railways and Harbours in this respect. These lower bodies of government have to implement the promises made by the Government. We find, as part of the reconstruction scheme promised by the Railways and Harbours, the City of Durban has to build houses, sub-economic houses, to house Railway employees. Now I submit that that is entirely wrong. I submit that State employees should not be paid so low a wage that they have to be provided by a local authority with sub-economic housing—the Municipality should not have to subsidise the Railways and Harbours Administration by providing the employees of that Administration with housing schemes at sub-economic rates to which the Municipality of Durban has to contribute to the extent of 1¾%. It is only necessary to provide people with sub-economic housing because people are underpaid and cannot provide their own housing facilities. Now, in that respect I want to say this, the South African Railways and Harbours should not pay their employees at rates which do not enable them to live in decent houses. Now, I want to ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours for an assurance. A considerable part of this post-war scheme depends on concluding arrangements made in connection with certain lands, the Bay Head lands, and then there is the Durban Harbour and the Durban Railway Station. First of all there is this matter of the Bay lands in respect of which the Administration has already got rights of expropriation. Yet at this moment despite the fact that the scheme has reached a certain stage, expropriation of certain lands at Rossburgh having already been given effect to, and while it is part of the preparation of the City of Durban’s Postwar Reconstruction scheme, there is at the moment no binding assurance on the part of the Railway Administration that these various schemes will be carried out. Now, the Municipality of Durban cannot continue on the assumption that all these various schemes will be given effect to—the City Council cannot proceed on the assumption that Durban will get a new Railway Station, that the areas round the gaol will be transferred and so on. Unless there is a binding assurance from the Railway Administration that these things will be done, it will be impossible for the City Council of Durban to proceed. I ask the Minister to give an assurance so that Durban may know without a shadow of doubt whatever that these measures will be proceeded with, so that the City Council may rest assured. Another matter which springs from the development of the Bayhead scheme is still clouded in secrecy because the Advisory Board will not make any statement. The fact, however, remains that the Administration has already expropriated land in that area. In 1940 the City Council had a conference with the Railways and Harbours Administration, when the Railways and Harbours undertook to make a grant of land and to contribute towards the cost of building a bridge across the Bay Head lands, but they refused to agree to make a contribution towards the cost of the building of the Bay Head Road. At that time the Railways and Harbours were probably justified because the interest of the Railways in the abutting land was very small, but since then, since the expropriation of the land at Rossburgh and the development of the scheme in the Rossburgh area, in which practically all the land will become the property of the Administration, the position has changed, and the time has arrived when the Minister should reconsider the decision made in 1940, and he should agree to contribute to the extent sought by the Municipality of Durban, a sum of £30,000 as half the cost of building that road. A precedent is established in the fact that the Administration bore the whole of the cost of the Mayden Wharf Road scheme. There is a further point of interest to the people of Durban. The matter was raised at a meeting of members of Parliament, Senators, Provincial Council members and City Council members of Durban, shortly before we left for Cape Town. A matter of grave concern to them is the attitude of the Railway Administration in regard to the proposed native settlement to be set up in the Umlazi area. The question of the transfer of the Glebe lands has not been finally dealt with yet. But in the event of the transfer of these lands to the Municipality, and the establishment there of a housing scheme, the Municipality requests that the Railways and Harbours should favourably consider the building of a line off the South Coast line running into the proposed housing scheme in that area. The attitude of the Administration has been, “We have to be assured of a return on the capital so invested.” I doubt whether that is consistent with the usual attitude of the Administration. I am doubtful whether, if a sufficiently powerful request were made by some farming interests, to build a joining line, the Administration would argue and say that it must be assured of a return on the capital invested. The purpose of the Railway is to give service to the people of the country and on that principle I urge the Minister to reconsider the whole position, and to provide such facilities as may be necessary in the Umlazi area.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Prinsloo) on the fresh use he has found for the words “discrimination” and “discriminate” in Parliament. He talks about discrimination and discriminate in every respect, but that is as far as my congratulations can go. I also want to sympathise with him because he apparently is so big that everyone overlooks him. Nor do I believe that the hon. member’s data is correct. He told us that the Railways in the Transvaal were built in 1885. I believe they were built in 1895. Now, I don’t want to say any more to him except this, that he has a greater political prejudice than any member we have ever had in this House. We throw back his charges of political prejudice where they belong. Now, I want to plead with the Minister for a particular railway line and I want to ask him whether it is not possible immediately after the war to give special attention to that line. It will mean expanding our Railways and it will be one way to provide for our returned soldiers. We have to provide work for the returned soldiers, and we have to employ them without putting off any of the people in our service today. If we put off the people who are employed on the Railways today we will have trouble. On the other hand, I feel that the people who have gone to fight must receive justice, and I therefore think the Minister should extend the Railways in that direction. I want to ask him whether it is not possible to complete the connection between Hofmeyr and Tarkastad—a distance of about twenty-five miles. If, in addition to that, a connection is also made to the Transkei the farmers in the Midlands will be able to send their cattle to Durban. If that line is built—it has already been surveyed—and the line in the Transkei is built, we shall be in a position to send our cattle direct to Durban from those areas. I hope the Minister will go into this question. I also want to ask the Minister to make more provision for cooling chambers and cooling trucks. We know that the meat industry is developing in various areas, especially in the Karoo, and that the farmers, and even companies, are intending to establish cold storages in the interior where the cattle can be slaughtered. We want the Minister to make early provision so that cooling trucks will be available when that development takes place. I again want to plead for double decker trucks, and I want again to ask the Minister to go into the matter. The freight charges for slaughter stock are unduly high. That also applies to other farm products. We are told sometimes that the rates for farm produce are low. They are low in respect of a few commodities such as mealies, but when it comes to cattle and stock the tariffs are very much higher. I therefore want to ask the Minister whether he cannot introduce a system of double deckers, similar to that which is in force in Australia. We have been told here about discrimination on the Railways. We have been told that 80 per cent. of the people on the Railways are Afrikaans-speaking and 20 per cent. English-speaking, but if that is so it seems strange that 40 years after the Boer War only 14 per cent. or 15 per cent. of the chiefs of staff are Afrikaans-speaking, while about 80 per cent. are English-speaking. To me it seems very stronge, and it does indicate to us that there has been discrimination in the past. I want to ask the Minister whether he does not think it high time that this position was changed. Then I also want to ask the Minister to revise the tariff for cattle food, and bring it down. The Industrial Corporation manufactures a mixture which is not entirely composed of mealie meal. It contains lucerne and other ingredients. That mixture is carried at a very much higher rate and I should like to know whether the Minister does not see his way to assist the dairy farmers by reducing the tariff to the same basis as that charged for mealie food. I have already discussed this matter with the Minister, but he has not yet complied with my request. I hope he will do so now. Mealies are going to be very scarce, and other mixtures will have to be used. As oats and lucerne meal, and fattening meal, will have to be used, I want to ask the Minister to remove this discrimination. These are the only points I wanted to raise, and I hope the Minister will look into them.

I have listened attentively to the discussions in this House and to all the complaints in regard to our Railways. Hon. members of the Opposition have done a lot of complaining about certain appointments and promotions of certain sections of the population on the Railways and also about other sections which in their opinion have not been given the legitimate promotion to which they were entitled. What struck me very forcibly was that even in this House the names of highly placed people are mentioned, and that remarks are made about them across the floor of the House. I was also surprised to hear the remarks about a distinguished person who is on a visit to Cape Town. That sort of thing is not to our credit.

He is a circus clown.

I say it is not to the credit of this House that hon. members should make such remarks about a distinguished visitor. Hon. members have also discussed the qualifications of a certain official who has been appointed to the Railway Board. We are told that according to those who know him he was a very good organiser of the South African Party. Now let me say this, I do not know much about the remarks made, and the objections raised to other people; those the Minister can reply to, but the remarks made about this particular person are most unfair. If he had been an organiser of the Opposition, and if he had done for the Opposition what he has done for the people of this country, then hon. members would have said that his qualification were as good as those of the Minister of Railways whom we had sixteen years ago. I say that it is most unfair for hon. members to have made the remarks they made here. But let us put our hands into our own bosom, we would do very much better if we did so, and let us cast our minds back to the years immediately after 1924. What happened in those days? One heard complaints all over the country from people who had been kicked out, or who had been transferred to places they knew nothing about. I myself addressed many meetings and used to speak about those things.

Are you still putting your own hand in your bosom?

Yes, my hand is still in my own bosom. Those things are not to our credit as true Afrikaners. If a fellow Afrikaner does his duty, give him the appointment and the promotion to which he is entitled, irrespective of his political views, and irrespective of the party to which he may belong. At this stage I do not want to say any more about the complaints regarding the people appointed and promoted after 1924. I only want to draw attention to a very serious blunder committed by the Railways in those days. They built a Railway line for us from Potchefstroom to Fochville. Before they started building that line we told the Railway Administration that that line could never pay, yet the line was built, simply to please a few individuals. The line is there now; it is a hopeless line and it is of very little use to us. It does not pay, and the loss suffered on it is attributable to the Minister of Railways of those days. So far as the present Minister is concerned I want to say that I do not know him very well, but the little I have got to know of him has shown me that he is very careful and very impartial. We are now asking him to consider this matter from a business point of view and to extend that Railway line, as we asked in the past. Extend that Railway line so that it joins the line to Vereeniging at Houtkop, and if that is done the line will be of great value to the public and also to the Railways, and it will pay. Thousands and thousands of bags of grain have to be despatched to Vereeniging and Johannesburg but we have no Railway line. All we have been given is an advance, and the intention always was to carry on that line—the “agterskot” would come within a couple of years but now, after sixteen years, nothing has been done, and that train runs twice a week at a loss.

Do you want the rails to be taken up?

We do not want to break up the work that has been done, but we want to extend that line for the benefit of the public. The Van der Bijl scheme at Vereeniging is being developed, and we have a lot of iron and steel in that area, and all our products have to go to Vereeniging and Johannesburg. We are therefore asking the Minister to give his serious attention to the building of a short line to form a connection with the main line.

The hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) has a peculiar habit of putting his hand into his bosom. First of all he puts his hand into his bosom and then he made a terrific fuss about the fact that the Nationalist Party Government had built a railway line in his constituency; after that he again put his hand into his bosom, and then his request was not only that the line should be kept there but that it should be extended a bit. It is peculiar to see the different effect it has upon people when they put their hands into their bosom. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo), in his maiden speech, about which I do not want to say anything, and in his speech yesterday again, about which I do want to say something, tried to take this side of the House to task and tell us how we should behave and how we should criticise the Government. The hon. member seems to take a pleasure in taking this side of the House to ask in the most contemptuous manner possible. I happened to hear a story this morning which reminded me of the hon. member’s attitude. I was told that a new church warden put out his chest very proudly and at the first meeting of the church wardens had a lot to say about the way he wanted to improve and change the whole congregation, and in doing so he also took older members of the Church Council to task. Nobody said very much while the meeting was on, but when the meeting was over, and his fellow, church wardens were walking along with him, one of them remarked: “You must be careful, my friend, people will laugh at you.” According to the hon. member we on this side of the House are no longer entitled to do our duty, but as an Opposition we must give up the rights of criticism which we possess. This is a democratic country, and under the Constitution provision is made for a Government and for an Opposition as well, and certain duties have been imposed on the Opposition which has also been given certain rights. One of the main duties of the Opposition is to keep a continuous watch on the Government and on the Departments of State. From the very nature of things the Government and its officials can very easily get into a groove. That applies to any Government and to any Government official no matter how competent he may be. And then there is always the possibility of corruption, of favouritism, and it is the duty of the Opposition to shine its torch on what is going on, to bring things to light; but according to the hon. member for Pretoria (District) we have no right to do so. He discriminates agains us as an Opposition. It is not fair. But what seems peculiar to me is that when promotions in the Railway service are discussed we are told the first thing that counts is efficiency, and the second thing loyalty. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. H. F. Bekker) is here. He judges at many shows and if he commits a serious blunder there is only one argument he can use to get out of his trouble, and that is by speaking of “quality”. Nobody can say exactly what quality is, and I am afraid the Railways have also invented a word to get them out of all their troubles, and that is “efficiency and loyalty”. Who is to determine when a man is efficient, when he is loyal or trustworthy; who is to determine what efficiency is, and what trustworthiness or loyalty is? That is where the discrimination comes in, and that is what we object to. Complaints are continually brought to our notice by people who feel that discrimination has been exercised against them. Mr. Speaker, this is real discrimination I am dealing with and we are therefore appealing to the Government to accept our amendment and appoint a commission of investigation. There is not one speaker opposite who has proved that we are wrong—nobody can deny that there are cases where the most rapid progress has been made by people in the Railway service in the last few years. It must also be admitted that positions have been manipulated. Salaries attaching to certain posts have been raised and certain officials have received rapid promotions. Those facts remain, and it is the duty of the Government, which claims to be a democratic Government, to listen to the Opposition and appoint the commission which it asks for. I also want to object to the use of the words “loyalty” or “trustworthiness”. What is the test of trustworthiness or loyalty? If an official for years has given his best services to the Department, and if no allegation can be made against his trustworthiness or against his loyalty, if he has a clean record, on what grounds can it be said then that another man is more trustworthy than he is? I am afraid this question of trustworthiness, in the sense the word is used today, is being abused—and I am afraid this question is going to drag our people into the political arena. What is the ideal position of the official world in connection with politics? We naturally expect our officials to have views in regard to the country’s affairs, but so long as the officials adopt an objective attitude and look at matters from an objective point of view, so long as they do not take an active part in political matters, we must respect them for the work they do, we must respect them and their work. We can all, I think, testify to the fact that the Railway officials have succeeded to a large extent in that regard, that they have looked at our political development and the trouble in this country in an entirely objective way. Most of our officials have now served under three governments, and under all those three governments they have given their very best services. Yet we come here today and take up the attitude that if a man is promoted to a key position he must absolutely loyal—as the Minister and the General Manager call it. What is the measure of loyalty? It appears to me the measure of loyalty today is that an official must associate himself with the politics and the political views of the present Government. If we want a healthy state of affairs in South Africa we cannot accept that point of view. If a man’s loyalty must be tested by the question whether he is an active supporter of the Government’s policy or not, we shall be creating a very unhappy position of affairs in South Africa. This is a democratic country and we have constant changes of Government here. Today we have one Government, tomorrow we may have another, and if the test of loyalty is to be whether an official is a supporter of the policy of the Governing party, it will lead to repercussions, and any Government following the present Government will have to do the same thing. It will have to see that the injustice which is now being committed is rectified, and it will mean that so far as the officials are concerned it will become a vital question—it will be a matter of bread and butter which Government is in power. If we push things as far as that it will be impossible for our officials to keep out of the political arena because it will be a vital question to them—it will be a question of their bread and butter, which party is in power. I want to ask the Minister again to prove that he is in earnest in regard to this matter. Let him agree to have this investigation. After the investigation, if it is found that the Opposition was in the right, the injustice should be rectified, but if it is found that the Opposition was wrong, it will reassure the officials. Now I want to say a few words about transport in general. One of our main, our principal needs is transport. We have a sparsely populated country; the population is spread over a large area, and consequently we have very considerable transport difficulties. Fortunately so far as we are concerned our Railways are today under State control, and the Railways in the past have taken up the attitude that by their policy they must try to reduce distances in South Africa. For instance they have followed the policy that as the distance becomes greater, so the rates must be gradually reduced. If for instance it costs £5 to carry a ton of produce over a distance of 50 miles, then it does not mean that it costs £50 to carry that ton of produce over a distance of 500 miles—but perhaps £30. The policy of the Administration was, and is to reduce distances, and we are glad of that. That is the policy on the main lines, on the Central system. Now, there are two ways of feeding main lines, first by means of branch lines, and secondly, by means of road motor services. Why were the branch lines constructed in the past? I believe they were primarily built with the object of developing the area through which such a line passed, and secondly, the branch line had to serve as the feeder for the main line, for the Central system. Of later years no more branch lines were built and the road motor services were introduced. I assume they were introduced for the same purpose and wherever such a service is established the primary object is to assist in developing the surrounding area, and the next object is to use the service as a feeder service for the Railway system as a whole. We have no objection to that, but now I want again to come to a question of real discrimination, and I think the hon. member for Pretoria District will agree with me—discrimination between the man using the branch line and the man who has to use the road motor service. We at Smithfield have to make use of the road motor service and I just want to show the disadvantage the farmer finds himself in if he has to make use of the road motor service. Let me give a few instances. It costs 7d. per 100 lbs. to send wool a distance of 56 miles over a branch line, but it costs 10d. to send that same wool over a distance of 56 miles by road motor service, a difference of 30 per cent. It costs 112d. per ton to carry grain by road motor service over a distance of 46 miles, but it only costs 64d. to carry that same grain over a branch line over the same distance, a difference of 43 per cent. It is a tremendous difference in the rates.

I want to remind the hon. member that there is a motion by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) on the Order Paper on the subject of Railway rates. The hon. member therefore cannot go into that question at the moment.

I only want to ask the Minister to give some relief. Now let me come to another question. It is unquestionably true that the people who are served by branch lines are served very much better than those who are served by road motor services. We know that no additional railway lines have been built of late, but conditions have changed. We know that before long the Railways will be called upon to re-employ 15,000 of their old employees who are today doing war work, and quite rightly so. We on this side have no objection to the men who have gone to fight for their convictions being re-employed by the Railways when they return. It is the duty of the Railways to re-employ them, but in the meantime 15,000 other people more or less have been employed by the Railways. What is the Administration going to do? Is it something to create unemployment? Is it going to put those new workers whom it has employed on the streets? Is it going to aggravate the trade depression after the war by doing so? We assume it is not the intention to do that. The Railways are the biggest employers in the country and they happen to be a Department of State. I cannot believe that the Railway Administration will be guilty of doing a thing like that, but we would like to know what the Minister intends to do. We want to know this from the Minister: When the war comes to an end, are these 15,000 old Railway workers who are in the army today, going to be kept in the army for a number of years so that the necessary preparations for the extension of Railway services can be provided, or does he think that these 15,000 people will immediately be re-employed and taken back in their jobs, and does the Government intend throwing the 15,000 people who at the moment are doing the work of these other people in the Railway service on the labour market outside? What seems so peculiar to me is this, that although everybody on the Government side believes that the war is going to end within a year, or in the course of next year, the Railways are making no immediate preparations to provide work for all those additional people. I am not trying to teach the officials or the Department how to handle the Railways, I do not want to teach them how to handle the traffic on the Railways, but I want to ask the Minister whether it would not be better for the country to divide the heavy traffic which rests on our Central System today. We can see the way the traffic has been growing, we see that our main lines have to be doubled. Would it not be better in the interests of the country to spread the traffic over the whole country? Would it not be better for the State to build more main lines? We heard the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) plead yesterday for a connection of the line which ends at Bitterfontein, so that the main line between De Aar and Cape Town will be relieved. The hon. member for East London (Mr. Latimer) on the other hand spoke about a connection for the Eastern Cape Line to relieve the traffic. We at Smithfield have been agitating for years for a line to be built from the main line between Durban and Bloemfontein, to go over Smithfield, and join the main line at a point between Bloemfontein and East London. A line of that kind will serve a treble purpose. First of all it will considerably relieve the traffic on the main line between Bloemfontein and Durban, secondly it will help to serve the most intensively cultivated part of the Free State which is without a Railway line today, and thirdly it will bring us very much nearer to our natural harbour, East London. If we have that connection it will make a tremendous difference in our Railway expenses so far as the whole of the Eastern Free State is concerned. East London is our natural harbour, and remains our natural harbour, and only by having such a line can the distance between East London and the Eastern Free State be shortened. There is another matter I want to say a few words about. We hear social security talked about every day. What does social security amount to? It amounts to this, that the standard of living of those people who are on the lowest rung of the ladder today must be raised. Now, I want to ask the Minister what the Railways have done of late years to raise the standard of living of our Railway workers. If one goes to areas today where Railway workers are living, it must be perfectly clear to everybody that these people live under conditions of poverty. The Minister of Railways recently, in answer to a question, said that there were still 10,000 Railway workers today earning less than 10s. per day. Is the Minister, as an employer, in earnest then, if he tolerates a condition like that and speaks about social security? We have not approached him here with a request for the expenditure of millions of pounds, but if our poorly paid Railway workers have their salaries raised slightly it may perhaps cost £300,000. These people have assisted in the past towards creating great surpluses. It is no more than fair that their standard of living should now be raised. I want to ask the Minister to assist these people and show his goodwill and belief in that better world about which we hear so much talk by raising the wages of the poorly paid officials. We talk about it every year. This is the time to make an improvement by raising the standard of living of these people.

Throughout my experience as a member of this House which covers a considerable period, there have never been so many members pledged to definite policies as there are in the present House. I would say, Sir, that the larger proportion of members of this House are pledged to defend social security in every form. In addition to that a considerable number of them are pledged to support the interests of the farming community. I want to draw attention to a state of affairs in regard to the social security of the farmer that calls for the immediate attention of every member of this House. The farmer is the only man who can be burnt out by the Railway Administration with impunity, and the only man whose means of redress amount to nothing. I want in particular to refer to the case of Mr. A. H. Noble, who recently carried his claim to the Supreme Court of Natal. Let me first of all indicate that Mr. Noble was a man who in the Great War sacrificed his material interests by going to fight for all those causes that impelled him to serve. His wife was amongst those who went to serve as a nurse in the same war, and at the present moment their only son is with the Sixth Armoured Division in North Africa. Mrs. Noble says, very eloquently, after she has summed up the nature of her husband’s treatment—

The facts of the case are very simple. Mr. Noble’s farm lies alongside the railway running from Bulwer to Donnybrook, and in August, 1941, a train ascending a somewhat steep gradient emitted sparks which set fire to Mr. Noble’s grass and he was completely burnt out. The only building that was saved was his modest dwelling. The remainder of his facilities for earning a living as a farmer were completely obliterated. One would have supposed that a case of that sort would have some appeal to the compassion of the Railway Administration, but the case was allowed to go on without any sort of offer of settlement, until Mr. Noble took the only means of redress open to him by starting an action in the Supreme Court, which action proved a very costly business to him. The judge in his judgment in this case, emphasises two very important matters. One was that the fire was caused by the engine. He had no doubt about that whatever. He says so in these words: “I find, therefore, that the fire was caused by the engine. I also find that it was caused by a spark from the smoke stack. The fire having been caused by the railway engine, section 70 of Act 22 of 1916 operates to raise a rebuttable presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant.” Now, if every wrongdoer had this advantage I venture to say that the lot of the wrongdoer as a class would be almost as comfortable and profitable as that of the Railways, but this advantage is confined, as far as the law of this country is concerned, to the Railways. The Railways are the only people who can burn out a farmer with impunity and their defence amounts merely to this, “That they had a spark arrestor.” It is admitted in this case that the spark arrestor did not arrest the spark, and as a matter of fact the theory of the Railways is that if you had such a spark arrestor in use the engine could not run efficiently. In other words, it largely turns on the evidence which is available to the Railways, almost by way of a monopoly, as to what a spark arrestor is supposed to do. In this case it is submitted that the spark was thrown out of the smoke stack in spite of the spark arrestor, and caused a fire on the plaintiff’s land. The Railways have an easy task to put forward and to rebut any claim on the ground of negligence. They merely have to put forward that there was a spark arrestor in use and in this case we have the evidence that the arrestor caused the sparks to be thrown on the plaintiff’s land—but that did not help the case of Mr. Noble. The plaintiff lost the case with costs and every farmer is exposed to the same risk whenever the railway runs through his land. You have in this case the instance of a farmer who since the late war has been endeavouring to build up a means of livelihood for himself, his wife and his son. The whole of his efforts are destroyed in one afternoon by the Railways, and the Railways can do that with impuity. I maintain that the state of the law is such that these cases cannot go on being repeated in the Union of South Africa without the farming community taking action which will prevent that for the future.

Hear, hear!

If the farming community were well organised, the Minister of Railways would not be able to sit in his place regarding the whole matter as somewhat of a joke. I consider that this is one of the most serious matters which could be brought before the Minister, and I maintain that the time has arrived when the Minister should face up to the desirability of meeting the farming community who realise that some of their best men are being destroyed in this way without redress. You come to the amount of the damage which this man suffered through the action of the Railways. The Judge was not silent on that matter. He said at the end of his judgment: “I should also add that if I had found for the plaintiff I should have assessed the damage at £1,521 9s. 6d.” Now, that may seem a very modest amount to those who deal in millions, but in the case of these unfortunate people it means the difference between their livelihood and sheer red ruin. There is no half way house for these people. They have yet to meet heavy costs in this case, they have yet to try and earn a living year by year until their son, who is perhaps better able to battle with the situation, returns from the Front. I maintain that this is a case which merits the immediate attention of the Minister with a view to bringing some relief to these people. This is not time for simply saying: “Well that is the law, we have the big end of the stick and this man as far as we are concerned can expect no sort of help from the Railways”. In the course of some years I have known instances in which men who have some inventive skill have gone to the Railways offering to sell them the patent for a spark arrestor of a better kind so that the risk entailed at present would no longer have to be borne by the farmer. I am also aware that the Railways were not even willing to investigate the spark arrestors invented by these people. I maintain that the position of preference and favouritism occupied by the Railways by virtue of the law of 1916 should be done away with. I urge that full compensation should be awarded to Mr. Noble. There are in other respects advantages enjoyed by the Railways which they should no longer enjoy. As common carriers they are able under the Act of 1916 to shelter behind the stipulation that consignments of various kinds are sent at owner’s risk, and where there is evidence for example that livestock had been destroyed through reckless handling of the trucks, I know of cases where the matter has been rejected almost with contumely. The Railways have an unlimited right to make their own conditions in regard to consignments, and they don’t forget to do it. I know of cases in which valuable livestock has been destroyed but the Railways have shown no consideration—in fact they have shown no mercy at all, to the unfortunate consignor or consignee who has suffered the loss. I maintain that the old system under which the Railways began to operate has to go, and we should devise some more up to date method by which their responsibility can be fixed and under which they can be made responsible for negligence, damage and loss. I hope there will be other members who will deal with this matter because the complaint is very widespread. Now, I want the Minister to give consideration to another question, and that is the desirability of including in the Defence Force intimations of casualties the names of South Africans whose lives have been lost at sea in the Merchant Navy. I have been informed that an officer who has to deal with one of the organisations controlling the Merchant Navy states that these casualties are under present circumstances notified to the Railways. My informant says that on a previous occasion the excuse made was that the South African Government had no means of ascertaining the particulars of these casualties. He quotes a letter: “I have not forgotten my promise to make enquiries about the subject of the South African casualties in the Merchant Navy. I have now heard from the Registrar-General that the particulars of the death of all South Africans have been communicated to the Commissioner of Customs and Excise, Pretoria.” This may not come directly under the Minister but as he virtually commands the South African Navy, I hope he will see that these notifications are passed on to his own department and that the considerable number of South Africans who have lost relatives at sea serving in the Merchant Navy will be able to be notified officially in South Africa of these occurrences from time to time. Then there is another matter of some consequence. I have a letter from the parent of a lad who recently qualified for his wings and they mention an instance in which friends of theirs were endeavouring to book on the train to go to Pretoria or Potchefstroom to be present at the passing out of their son, and they say that in order to get a ticket on the train they had to pay £5 in the nature of an inducement to get a booking on the only train which would have brought them there in time.

A £5 bribe?

I take it that that is what they mean. It is a payment not in the tariff book or in any of these wonderful documents which we always hear of when we make a complaint—it was a payment under the lap, and I would like the Minister to investigate it.

Will you give me some particulars?

I shall endeavour to get the particulars. I thought I should mention it at this stage because the difficulties of booking have already been referred to in this House. I personally have helped, as far as I could, to facilitate booking of seats on the part of my own constituents, but this is a case outside my own constituency.

There is one point more which I should like to mention for the consideration of the Minister of Transport. The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt) made reference on Monday to the regrettable number of instances in which vacant appointments were advertised without any sort of preference being indicated for men who had served their country. I think he drew attention to a cutting from a Natal newspaper—quite a prominent advertisement in which architectural appointments on the Railways were advertised as being vacant, and although I know of at least one serving soldier who would have been very glad to have availed himself of one of these appointments—and there must be very many besides—no reference whatever was made even to the existence of returned soldiers. I hope that the strong remonstrance that has come from the Empire Service League, Johannesburg Branch, will be noticed by Ministers in future. There is an article in the “Sunday Times” of the 13th January should any of the absent Ministers, who number eleven, be interested in this matter. It deals with this matter very fully and in this article there appears this remonstrance from the body I have mentioned—

And quite right too. I think it is high time that such a step as that were taken. The question I wish to put to the Minister is this: Is it a fact that quite a prominent member of the running staff, I think he is designated a yard inspector at the Point, was interned some time ago because he performed his duties in such a way as to advantage the enemy. I am told by people who have in the past been very reliable in their sources of information that this man was charged with mixing up labels on trucks so as to cause great confusion in regard to the destination of consignments, and that it was looked upon as a very serious offence for which he was actually interned. But now that he has been released he has been reinstated on the same salary, the same grade, and the same status, without any apparent diminution in his importance, although he is no longer trustworthy enough to be employed in Durban in the post which he had occupied. I maintain that the reluctance of the Railway Administration which is evidenced in all their advertisements for vacant appointments, to give any consideration to service men, combined with their willingness to reinstate meh who have obviously been working against the interest of the State, and to the advantage of the enemy, is very much to be regretted. I hope the Minister will make a statement on this case because it is a case causing a great deal of unfavourable comment in Natal, and I hope the Minister will go further and say that in regard to vacant appointments it is the wish of the Administration that the service man who is qualified and who has served his country in the most distinguished manner in which any man can serve his country at this time will have preference in regard to any vacant appointment.

I shall not detain the House long. I only want to know from the Minister what has been done since the last Session about the station foremen who have to work twelve hours and more per day? I submitted their case to the House last Session. I gave all the details then and I don’t think it is necessary to do so again. The Minister at that time seemed to be sympathetically disposed and I understand that a Committee of Enquiry has been appointed. I am anxious to know whether that Committee has reported and whether anything will be done to meet those people. Then there is the question of the conductors of the trains, people who have to work eight and nine hours per day, and who I understand are not paid any overtime. That does not seem fair to me. The Railways are a Department of State and as such they should be a model employer who does not transgress the rules applying to our factories and other concerns. I fail to see what justification there is for making people work longer hours on the Railways than they have to work in any other institution. I therefore want to know from the Minister what he is going to do about these people who have to work more than 8 hours per day—what relief is he going to give them, and are they going to be paid an allowance? I should also like to know what the position is going to be in regard to Ashton station. The money has been on the estimates for the last five years but no work is done to that station. I am not concerned whether the money is on the estimates or not, I want to know when the building is going to start. The Ashton station today is in a very poor state. There is a large factory at Ashton, one of the largest factories for canning fruit and konfyt in the country. Thousands of people are employed there day and night, but the station building is in such a condition that it looks as if it may collapse at any moment, yet the authorities insist on painting the outside of the building but inside is is so bad that we might almost call it a white washed tomb. I should like the Minister to give us some information on this point. Then there is another question. In my constituency large quantities of fertiliser are used. We try to get the fertiliser as cheaply as possible, and that is why we get it from places as close as we possibly can. I understand that the military trucks in some of the districts are to be used for the purpose of carting manure to the Railways. Now I should like to know from the Minister whether he will also give that privilege to the Ladismith district. The lorries cannot get petrol and tyres. We have the kraals there, but we cannot get the manure carted to the train. We are expecting bad times and the Government has told us that we must do our best in the meantime to improve our land as much as we possibly can. I therefore want to know from the Minister whether he is prepared to come to our assistance in that respect. There is a good deal of manure in that district. In the past the people there used to cart a lot of manure, but they have stopped doing so, and I now want to know from the Minister whether he is prepared to give those districts the facilities which he has given to other parts of the country. Then we have also had a good deal of talk—and the Minister of Native Affairs has also dealt with this subject—about elevator facilities at a number of places, but why cannot we have a small elevator constructed at Swellendam? It is needed there much more than at a number of other places. We have a wet climate there, and particularly at a time like the present, at a time of scarcity, when every bag of wheat has to be preserved, when we are going to have a shortage and wheat will have to be imported, it is necessary to have elevators at certain places. An elevator at Swellendam would serve a large part of the grain districts of Bredasdorp, Caledon and Swellendam. A grain elevator would make it possible for us to store wheat and to preserve it, so that it can be used and does not go bad. In conclusion I want to say a few words about the amendment proposed by the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I would like the Minister to listen to what I say. One of his supporters, the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) openly stated here in Parliament that there is discrimination. He said: “What are you complaining about, there has always been discrimination, why do you complain of discrimination now?” If that is the mentality of the House then surely the Minister should express his willingness to have an enquiry made because if he is not prepared to do so then he cannot blame us if we say that he is afraid, that he is afraid that things may come to light, that he is afraid because there is discrimination, and he is afraid of the facts coming out. I again want to appeal to him in the circumstances to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee. If he is as honest, as innocent and as good as we are told he is, and if all is well in regard to promotions, if there has been no manipulation in regard to changes in rank and post, he can quietly submit the whole matter to the judgment of a Select Committee. If he has done the right thing the Select Committee will back him up, and if he has done any wrong the Select Committee will put him in his place.

I wish to support in the strongest way possible the statement made by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) with regard to the railway fire that destroyed the home and the farm of the Nobles. These unfortunate people are constituents of mine, so I know the true facte of the case from beginning to end, and I wish to say the hon. member has not overstated the facts. If anything, he has understated them. I have also studied the summing up and the findings of the judge in that case, and he made it perfectly plain that the fire originated from the engine, but that the law lays down that the claimant must prove negligence or that reasonable precautions were not taken. Mr. Speaker, this law is a bad law. It protects the strongest, and the ones best able to look after themselves, against the weakest. What hope has a farmer against the railways of proving that the Administration have been negligent? All the principal witnesses in a case like this are railwaymen, men who if they were admitted that they were negligent would be called to book, and they would have to suffer for it. Consequently, they are out to protect the Railway Administration to the fullest. I would go further and say that the Railway Administration has laid down a principle that they repudiate every claim for damages, whether they know the claim is just and reasonable, or not; if the claimant cannot prove that the Administration have been negligent the Railways get away with it. As I say, when the principal witnesses are railwaymen, what hope has a poor farmer to prove that the Railways are the cause of the fire and have been negligent? As I said before, Mr. Speaker, this was a bad law. The Minister has not only admitted it, but he has taken action by introducing an amendment to that law. I should like to read that amendment, which was passed last year, and unfortunately it does not go the whole hog. In this amendment, however, the Minister does not insist upon the claimant proving that the Administration were negligent. The amendment reads—

The unfortunate part is that while the Minister has brought in that amendment to the principal Act, wrongly he has limited the damage to £250; they were paid damages up to £250 but no more. At the same time, certain conditions were laid down under which the farmer could claim that £250. But I maintain that if this amendment is a fair and right one, why should the amount be limited to £250; that is a small amount of damage. When a man suffers greater damage, as in this case, this amendment does not apply. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that public opinion should be so strong on this matter that the Administration should incorporate in this amendment not damage up to £250, but damage to whatever extent it is caused. The bigger the damage the more the farmer suffers, and the more reason there is why this amendment should cover that. As I said, the Railway Administration never admits any liability in any way whatsoever unless the plaintiffs can prove that the Administration were negligent; and they have instructed their employees and their staff that that is the principle on which they work. I would think that for the honour of the Railway Administration and their sense of fair play and what is right, they would not take up that attitude. I know, Mr. Speaker, that in this case the principal law is the one on which the Railway Administration based its defence. These people have their homestead and farm destroyed, but to recover damages they had to plead that the Railway Administration had been negligent. What does the administration mean by “negligent”? By being negligent they that mean ordinary precautions were not taken; whether the precautions that the Railways take, as the hon. member for Pinetown suggested, comprise having a spark arrestor on the engine, but 90 per cent. of the fires that originate on the railway line are due to defective arrestors. A spark flies up and if the arrestor is defective and not functioning properly—and that is not taking the necessary precautions—nobody is safe who is living on property adjoining the Railways. In this particular instance it is almost certain that at some time or other a fire would have occurred. At this point the railway line climbs a steep gradient, and on many occasions trains have not been able to get up this gradient, but stick half way. That means that in the ordinary course the engine drivers stoke up their fires before they approach this gradient, and when they get to the gradient they rake out the fire to create a greater draught, which means that sparks pour out of the funnel of the engine through the spark-arrestor, and, as in this case, when a high wind is blowing it is almost certain that sparks must fly for a long distance into the lands adjoining the railway line, as happened in this instance. I feel that the administration know that in this particular case the ruin of this man and his family were entirely due to circumstances which they are responsible for. Knowing that I feel that they should not shelter under a law which affords them protection. The Railway Administration, which is a very strong body indeed financially and otherwise, is in a very privileged position, and it takes the greatest advantage of that position. I feel that even if the law protects the Railways their sense of fair play and justice should have prevailed in this particular case. I feel that we who represent farmers in this House should arouse public opinion to such an extent that the Government and the Administration would amend the law, so that they would be placed on the same footing as any other transport carriers who are liable in respect of every act of damage they commit. Why should they be in a privileged position? They are not a poor administration. They have a surplus of millions in their running of the Railways, and it is not a question of not being able to pay up, but it is a question of not paying until they are forced to pay, even though they may know they are to blame. I hope that the Minister and his department will go into this question again, because I feel that they are not being honourable in taking advantage of a law that affords protection to the department.

Can you say they are not honourable?

Would the hon. member be honourable if he caused some damage to somebody and then screened himself behind a bad law, and refused to pay damage on account of some legal technicality?

What you say is not true.

I will ask the hon. member to prove to the House that this is a just and fair law. If he can do this he is a better man than I take him for. I think enough has been said about this case, and I hope that the Minister will take some action in regard to it. If the loss had not exceeded £250 the Railway Administration would have been willing to reimburse the farmer, they would have paid him out; but now with a loss like this which may run into some thousands, they refuse to meet the damage. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if it is fair to pay out in respect of a small loss, it is much more necessary to pay out in respect of a big loss such as this, which has ruined a farmer and his family. A family who have made great sacrifices and done service for the State, for which they have suffered.

I also want to say a few words about Railway matters. We have been told that about 80 per cent. of the Railway officials are Afrikaans-speaking and 20 per cent. English-speaking. I don’t look upon these men as Afrikaans or English-speaking, but as officials of the Railway Administration. Hon. members know that a large proportion of the officials used to be members of the Ossewabrandwag. The Government stepped in and deprived them of their right to belong to that body, so all of them resigned from the Ossewabrandwag. We are in this war, and if we study the statistics we find in these years of war there has been no increase in railway accidents as compared with peace time. For that we can thank the railway workers who have been loyal, no matter what their feelings were about the war. We must respect them. There has been no sabotage on the railways, although the Minister knows that a large proportion of his workers did belong to movements opposed to the war. These people have to do their work, no matter what their feelings are about the war, and they have done their work well. Now I want to make this request: If housing schemes are undertaken railway men in particular must be provided for, so that their living conditions may be improved. My constituency is 5,400 feet above sea level. Snow generally falls there twice or even four times per year; yet in certain parts of the North Eastern Free State railway workers live in corrugated iron houses. Imagine the sufferings of a railwayman, who after eight hours’ work in these north-eastern parts of the Free State has to live in a corrugated iron house. At night snow falls and in the daytime too, but even when it snows these men cannot stay at home because the trains have to run and they have to keep the line in order. At night when they come home the wind, snow and sleet get into the houses which are not weatherproof; one can well imagine the feelings of the man, his wife and his children under these conditions! So far as I am concerned, it does not matter whether a man is English or Afrikaans-speaking, they are workers in the employ of the Administration, they are fellow Afrikaners who are rendering a great service to the country; the question whether they are supporters of the Government does not concern me. They have done good service, even in the war. Even if an official feels that he cannot support the Government’s policy, he still does his work well and that fact should be appreciated, and when therefore we are in a position to give these people improved amenities and facilities, they must not be forgotten. They start working when they are young; they have very little leisure for themselves and their families, and they have to stick to their work. I came down by train the other day and I met a railway employee who had to do duty on the train from Harrismith right through to Kimberley—he was a ticket examiner and after that he had to go straight back to Bloemfontein. These people are at home very rarely, and I want the Minister to consider the question of improving their position, especially so far as housing is concerned, and to give them improved amenities. I also want to say something about the medical services provided for railway officials. Bethlehem is a large centre and we have a Railway Medical Officer there; there is a large hospital too, and there is another fairly large hospital at Kroonstad, and then we also have the national hospital at Bloemfontein. If an official at Bethlehem gets ill, the Railway Medical Officer sends him to Bloemfontein for examination. Perhaps he can get better treatment at Bloemfontein, but he has to leave his family behind at Bethlehem. Bethlehem is a big centre, many trains pass through the station yet the man has to go to Bloemfontein. He has no means and he cannot afford to take his family with him. He may have to stay in hospital at Bloemfontein for five or six weeks and he has no opportunity of seeing his family. I don’t know whether hon. members here have ever been ill, but I have had the sad experience of being confined to hospital for a long time. Far away from my family. The first night I thought I was going to die, but unfortunately I did not die. I know what it means to be away from home and to be ill in a strange place. I therefore want to ask the Minister if possible to make arrangements so that people can be treated in the local hospital except in special circumstances. Now there is another point I want to touch on. We have a member of the Mealie Control Board here, and I want to say that it is a puzzle to me that although one often has a co-operative society and a grain elevator in the same town, the co-operative society does not use that elevator. What is the trouble? The co-operative society has its Board of Management and the Railway Administration has its representatives. Why don’t these people use the grain elevator?

The rates are too high.

If that is so, cannot something be done to reduce the rates? We are struggling to produce sufficient food but if one travels by train one sees thousands of bags of grain stacked outside and as a result of the rains the grain goes rotten. I recently visited my constituency and I was told that at one station alone, about 4,000 bags had gone bad owing to the rain. The mealies had been spoilt and were no longer fit for human consumption. If the tariffs are too high they should be reduced. We cannot allow the grain to rot while the elevators are empty. No matter whether we are in favour of the war, or against the war, it is our duty as farmers to see to it that the people of South Africa have ample food, and if we allow the food to go rotten we shall get into very serious trouble. I want to express my sincere thanks to the Railway Administration for having come to the assistance of the farmers in regard to the reduction of the Railway rates on artificial fertilisers and goat manure. That was done because we required this fertiliser to enable us to produce. In regard to the transport of lucerne, lucerne used to be carried cheaply by the Railways. We need lucerne for cattle food, we don’t need it in summer but in winter. If we have to produce meat for the market we have to have lucerne and I want to ask the Minister to bring down the tariff for cattle and stock food to what it used to be. Today we have to pay practically double what we paid in the past. The hon. members for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) and Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) told the House about a man who had given his life for the freedom of our country. I understand he was a man who was on active service in the 1914 to 1918 war, and whose son is on active service now. That man fought for the country but we, who supply the country’s food, are doing just as much for the country as that man is doing. I don’t want to go into individual cases but I want to say a few words on the subject of fires. If one travels by train at night one can see how these fires originate. They don’t start so easily when the train is on a downgrade, but they usually start when the train goes uphill. The train has to work up speed to get up a hill, and the sparks are blown about and the grass catches fire, especially in our parts of the country where there is a lot of grass veld which is often dry through lack of rain. The farmer may have made a fire belt and he may have taken all sorts of precautions, but often one cannot prevent the grass from catching fire. I feel that the tariff for compensation must have been drafted in the days when the Railways were still primitive, when farming was still in its infancy, when large areas were sparsely populated, and when there was no mealie or wheat production on a big scale. The position today is different. The country is thickly populated and serious damage is caused by these fires. At the time when the compensation rates were laid down, farmers must have been farming with scrub cattle but today we have imported thoroughbred European breeds to improve our herds. In spite of that the maximum compensation for an animal is still £10. Surely people trade in stud stock, and the animals are taken from one place to the other. That being so, is it fair that when such animals, which cost hundreds of pounds, are destroyed as a result of an accident on the Railways, for which I am not responsible and perhaps the man driving the train is not responsible either—is it fair in those circumstances that the owner of the animal can only get £10 compensation for a pedigree stud animal? I want to ask the Minister to change these rates. The Railways are a national asset, and I am sorry that some of our friends over there are trying to use it for the purpose of starting a political quarrel. I feel it will be disastrous if we classify our officials according to parties. I do not classify officials. An official is a good official if he renders service to me and provides me with the facilities which he is able to on the Railways.

I am sorry that I have not heard any of the Government speakers get up to support the amendment of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan). I am in sympathy with that amendment and if he is prepared to accept a small amendment I may be inclined to support it. Why he only takes up the cudgels on behalf of the senior officials I do not know. I always thought that the Nationalist Party had very little sympathy with the capitalist class. Now, the hon. member wants an enquiry made into the injustice done to Afrikaans-speaking officials, and particularly the senior officials. Why the Minister did not jump at the opportunity of an investigation of this nature I don’t know. I am perfectly confident that a case could be made out on behalf of the English-speaking Railway employees, a case which would knock the bottom out of anything that could be put up by the Afrikaans-speaking section. So far as this tremendous injustice to the Afrikaans-speaking section is concerned, let hon. members turn up some of the debates which we have had in this House, particularly on the language question. There are hundreds, probably thousands of men who will go to their graves with a grudge against the Railway Administration owing to their having been penalised all their lives through lack of knowledge of the second language. I can tell this House of hundreds of cases where English-speaking officials have been refused promotion of any kind. There is nothing unusual for an English-speaking member of this House to have representations made to him on behalf of English-speaking servants of the Railway Administration who are penalised year after year without any hope of an increase of pay, without any hope of promotion, simply because they happen to be born in Natal and do not know the second language. I know that other parts of the Union do not sympathise with this point of view—but it would be well if the Union—that is the Transvaal, Free State and the Cape, were to realise that Natal is also part of the Union, and is equally entitled to the priveleges which other parts enjoy. One would have thought after all the representations that had been made on this subject that the House would have welcomed an enquiry into the whole position so that the situation might have been judged on its merits. So far as the present Minister is concerned I have sent any number of cases of English-speaking Railway servants to him—but I am afraid I have had to give him up as a bad job. When Mr. Pirow was Minister of Railways one could go to him with a perfectly good case—he would delve into it and have an enquiry made, and I know of many instances where the former member for Gezina saw to it that English-speaking members of the Railway Administration received the promotion due to them. Yes, it really was a pleasure to take a case to Mr. Pirow because one knew that he would give it his sympathetic consideration; and what did the present Minister say to me last year? He said: “Let the hon. member bring cases to me and I shall see to it that they are dealt with in a satisfactory manner”. What has happened to all these cases? They have been shelved. But I say that the Nationalist members should be the very last to speak of injustice having been done to Afrikaans-speaking members of the Railway Administration. I do not want to prolong this debate, but if I had the time I could show numerous cases of English-speaking officials where injustices have been done. I think the hon. member for Piketberg in moving his amendment was not on very good grounds so far as the Afrikaans-speaking section was concerned. I want to mention a few cases of English-speaking Railway servants as they come to my mind. I knew of a man who has been asking for a transfer to the Cape for the last twelve years.

Where does bilingualism come in?

This man is a motor driver. He has two boys at the front—one of them has been killed. I know he cannot speak to his lorry in Afrikaans—he cannot tell it in Afrikaans when it is in top gear, to get a jerk on. Terrible thing! Well, that man is told he cannot be transferred. Why not? That man said to me last year: “I hope I am not worrying the Administration, but I have put in an application year after year for a transfer to Cape Town; I don’t want to inconvenience them.” I told him he would be alright in another ten years’ time. His reply was: “Well, I shall be quitting in three years’ time.” We have stationmasters, third grade stationmasters, who have been on the same job for years. I have one particular case in mind. The Administration said: “Very well, in order to help this man we shall regrade his station, we shall make it a second grade station, although it has always been a third grade station.” Then the snag came in. They said: “Of course, we cannot increase his pay; he is still a third grade stationmaster, but he will be looking after a second grade station.” Unfortunately this man was born in Natal and he did not know the second language. Only last year I was asked to present a petition on behalf of our Railway Servants Association for a man who had been retired. I spoke to two Ministers about it, and both of them turned up their noses and said: “Sorry, we cannot do anything. It is the law of the country, and we are just not interested.” And so we go on but this sort of thing is creating very serious dissatisfaction among a most deserving section of the community. And it is not helping efficiency in any way. Now, let me say this to the hon. member for Piketberg and his friends—if they have any of these heartrending cases let them come along and we shall try and move the Minister. We want every man to get a fair deal, irrespective of his language. Let every case be judged on its merits. But unfortunately the Minister sits there like a Sphinx. He says: “I shall see that something is done,” but that is the end of it, and that being so I would welcome an investigation such as is asked for by the hon. member for Piketberg.

Why don’t you vote for our amendment?

I would be quite prepared to vote for it if it were not for the fact that we have urgent matters to deal with in connection with the war but I do say that I would welcome an investigation of this kind so far as English-speaking officials are concerned. And no matter how long such an investigation took it would be time well spent if it resulted in justice being done to many men who are suffering from a serious sense of grievance today. But evidently the Government are more concerned with other matters. I hope the hon. member for Piketberg will not allow his amendment, to drop—I hope he will raise it some other time when the Government cannot make an excuse and say that the war is preventing it from looking into the position.

Why don’t you support the amendment?

Many of us will do so at the right time; all we want is that justice shall be done. I am quite sure that if we had an investigation and had the whole position gone into, it would put an end to a lot of the racial feeling which we have today. The hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Miles-Cadman) criticised the Minister the other day about the transfer of certain officials. Well, I have also mentioned the case of a man who wants a transfer. The present Minister will not always be in a Ministerial position, and the day will come when we shall be able to help the poor individual who wants a transfer. Now let me mention a few cases. The Administration seem to spend most of their time in trying to see how much inconvenience they can cause to railway employees. They have a man in Durban who is doing a particular job—and doing that job very well. That man has been there for a long time, he has bought his own property and he has paid for it. So the Administration steps in—it looks all over the country for another man to take that man’s place. They find a man in Cape Town who is in exactly the same position—he also has a house and a family. So they take the Durban man and send him to Cape Town and they take the Cape Town man and send him to Durban. It is simply too ridiculous for words. No business house would ever dream of doing a thing like that. If you approach the System Manager and speak to him about it and you tell him, “This man has just paid for his house; he is very anxious to stay where he is. Is it necessary to transfer him? He is not going to Cape Town on promotion,” the answer is: “Well, it is a matter falling under the technical or administrative section, it has nothing to do with me.” He will simply try and pass the buck on to someone else. You go to another official and he also tells you it has nothing to do with him. You are told: “Yes, Cape Town is insisting on getting a man to do that particular work.” But you find that the man who is transferred from Cape Town has all the time been doing exactly the same work as the man who is transferred from Durban to Cape Town. The one man comes from the Cape to Durban to do exactly the same work as the man who goes from Durban to the Cape has been doing. And one finds the same sort of thing all over. Members of Parliament who make representations are treated like dolls that you can buy for 1s. a dozen in the bazaar. Not long ago I suggested to the Minister of Railways, as the outcome of a circular, which had been issued, that before long members of Parliament would be compelled to travel in dog boxes. Fortunately we find that conditions have improved and we can now get four in a compartment instead of six. I can say this, that it is no use our approaching a system manager. I have yet to find a system manager in Durban who will ever help a Member of Parliament so far as staff matters are concerned. I have tried several times but I have never had any assistance. Well, we have to approach the Minister and we have to do the best we can but everywhere it is a case of passing the buck. Now I want to remind the House that Durban is the premier port of South Africa.

Do you really mean that?

I thought that was common knowledge. Besides, hon. members know that anything of importance comes from Natal. Evidently that surprises hon. members. Now, I want to touch on another matter. The City Council of Durban has been most anxious to assist the Administration in every possible way in connection with the alterations that are so desirable in Durban and the improvements so far as the Bay is concerned. Our City Council has had expert advice about the whole position and it generally known that Durban is the most suitable place in South Africa for a flying base. The City Council of Durban was very anxious to discuss this subject with the Minister and his Department. But it took the Minister and the Department so long to deal with the question that when eventually the subject comes up for discussion, the representations of the Durban City Council will be forgotten. For weeks and months this matter has been pending. Letters are sent, but there is invariably a delay before a reply is received. When the Minister was in Durban he discussed a number of subjects with his department, but the City Council knew nothing about it; it is just another instance of passing the buck. Now I want to ask the Minister what are the objections to Durban becoming the premier flying base in South Africa? If it is a question of finance, or of land, I am certain that the land can be made available, and I hope the Minister will not tell us that it has been decided to use the Vaaldam as a flying base; I hope he will not tell us that the flying base must go to the Transvaal. I hope he will see to it that Durban is given the opportunity which it is so fully entitled to in this connection. If he will tell us exactly what he requires I am certain Durban will help him in every possible way. I say that there is no justification for removing the flying base to the Hinterland.

Is not the Vaaldam bigger than your harbour?

It may be, but we can extend the harbour. We are certain that we shall be able to give all the facilities possible and we are not concerned with the cost. There is one other little matter I want to mention and that is that it will be necessary in the near future to have our South Coast and North Coast lines electrified. At present we are jammed into a very small space in Durban, and if we have to find a reasonable outlet for our non-European population, the North and South Coasts will have to be developed because they are the only portions which can be utilised, but we shall require transport for that purpose. I am sure you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I try to demonstrate to the Minister my particular point. We are faced with the Indian problem in Durban. This is linked up with the question of transport. The only way we shall be able to satisfy the Indian and non-European community in Durban is by giving them transport at cost. Now, if South Africa—and when I say South Africa I mean the other provinces—is not prepared to allow our Indians to spread over the other provinces, if the other provinces are determined to keep their boundaries closed, then I say that we must make provision for our Indian community on the South Coast and on the North Coast. And we can only do that if the Minister of Railways will give us cheap transport. In our post-war development we shall have large housing schemes and we cannot expect these people to pay something like 1s. per day or more for transport. The Minister will have to face up to this proposition and I hope he will give it his serious consideration because I maintain, and honestly believe, that the only true solution of the Indian problem lies in that direction—it is a direction where the Minister of Transport will have to bear the financial responsibility. Having made that perfectly clear I trust that none of the other members of the House will have any objection to the Minister of Transport saying that he is prepared to face this problem. In conclusion I hope that the hon. member for Piketberg will bring up his amendment again on a future occasion and I can promise him a very interesting and happy time when this investigation does take place, and I am sure it will be welcomed by hundreds of Railway servants who are today suffering as a result of their being penalised on account of the language question. I hope the hon. member will bear that in mind and that he will propose his motion again at a more opportune time when it will meet with substantial support from this side of the House.

The question of discrimination has been very thoroughly gone into in this debate—at any rate as far as I can see the whole subject has been very carefully analysed. The allegation is that the Government and the Minister of Railways are deliberately indulging in a policy of discrimination against a certain section of officials. The other side of the House has denied this—it has done so very pertinently—and has declared that there is no discrimination. I am very glad to hear it. Representing a large body of Railway officials, as I do, I can assure hon. members that I am delighted to hear that it is not the policy of the Government or of the Minister to discriminate against certain sections of officials. But if it is not the Government’s or the Minister’s policy, then I feel constrained to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that none-the-less discrimination does occur. And not only do cases of discrimination occur but they occur often. I had experience of it in my constituency during the last elections. In one instance a prominent official was occupying an acting position, senior to his own, but was entitled to expect to be permanently appointed to the post in which he was acting. Yet, merely because his wife assisted in serving coffee at one of my tables at a polling booth, the husband was notified the day after the election that he would have to resume his former junior post. Another official assisted me in my organisation and although he did not take any prominent part, he was warned by the chief internment officer that if he continued to assist me he would be interned. I have been in the Government service for years and I therefore knew the position and I deliberately tried to prevent any official—Railway or other—from assisting me in my campaign as it might bring him into conflict with the regulations. In my particular case my opponent was a Railway official. This man addressed political meetings and other Railway officials assisted him. He was openly assisted by Railway officials who did their best to win the seat against my party. I am glad to hear, therefore, that it is not the Minister’s or the Government’s policy to discriminate, and I want to ask the Minister, seeing that that is his policy,, to make sure that the chief officials of the Railway Administration do not indulge in discrimination. I as an old official admit that the Government cannot allow officials openly to take part in politics. But if an official is not allowed to take part in politics to assist party “A,” then he should not be allowed to assist party “B” either, and above all he should not be allowed to stand as a candidate and be assisted by his fellow officials. There is another point I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. It is a question of local importance. As the Minister knows, a new railway line and new workshops were built and opened at Capital Park a short while ago; loading and offloading facilities were provided for but those facilities are for the Railway Administration only. One instance was brought to my notice—it was the case of a big dairy; the train from the North brings a supply of dairy products and the trucks stop in the immediate vicinity of the retailers. The next morning those trucks made a detour of many miles in order to get to Pretoria Station. The hon. the Minister is also Minister of Transport and under the conditions of transport which prevail today, it becomes very difficult in places with a population of 20,000 people to carry out the ever-increasing activities of that area. I have discussed this matter with the System Manager in Pretoria and I am glad to be able to say that I had a sympathetic reception, but this is where the Minister comes in. The Minister and the General Manager have stated that it is a question of policy which has to be considered before that station can be made available to the public, and I therefore want to urge the hon. the Minister to go into the position. There are large quantities of products, not only farming products but building materials too, which, on account of the lack of those facilities, have to be daily carried over tremendously long distances. Let me mention one instance where the goods had to be moved by horse transport. The horse took ill and an attempt was made to secure transport. No suitable motor transport was available and a permit could not be obtained. The people concerned then tried to move their goods in trailers behind their motor cars, but once again they were held up by shortage of petrol. I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for raising this subject—but after all it is a question of transport. When the Petrol Controller was approached for more petrol, he replied: “Go home and pray that your horse may recover.” Well, we are all religious men, but I don’t think we should have to pray for our horse’s health when we have a railway station next door to us. I would rather pray that the Minister of Railways may be induced to open up this railway station. Now I want to say a word on the subject of sidings. Many applications have been made to the Government for sidings which are urgently needed, but so far none of those applications have succeeded. Cannot the Minister help us here? The people who have applied for these sidings can afford to pay for them, and surely it is essential when a railway line is built in an area like the one I am referring to, where large capital expenditure has been incurred, that everything possible should be done to secure as much traffic as possible in order to make the enterprise economic. Then the hon. member for Pretoria (District.) (Mr. Prinsloo) spoke about the Kaalfontein Training Institute. I had the honour of being present at the opening, and I must congratulate the Minister and the Administration on the idea, and also on the fact that they have started such a magnificent scheme. This institute will supply a need which has existed in the Railway Administration for a long time, and we feel that the institution will do a tremendous amount of good, not only for the officials but for the public of South Africa as a whole. There is only one point I want to raise, and I hope the Minister will give me his attention—it is the question of the appointment of staff to that institute. Some time ago applications were invited for a principal for the Institute at a high salary I feel that in a matter concerning the training of the whole Railway staff in South Africa, a staff of about 7,000 Europeans alone, it is of the utmost importance that the Minister should select people who not only possess the necessary technical qualifications, but who also understand the psychology, the national aspirations of the Railway officials, and it will be no use our putting up such a magnificent institution—the building of which alone costs £3,000,000, if we put people in charge who possess only a “working knowledge” of either the one or other language. There is another small question I want to touch on and that is the attitude of the Railways towards industrial development. For many years I have been intimately connected with the question of industrial development in this country. I have also had the privilege of serving on numerous commission on the subject, and I wish to refer to a question which has often caused a lot of trouble, and that is that the Railway Administration looks upon the Railways purely as an instrument to produce revenue for them. And the argument is often used that the customs tariff is there to give protection to industries and that the Railways are not concerned, but if we study what the Act of Union says about Railway policy we find that it is deary laid down that Railway rates must be fixed in such a manner as to facilitate the economic development of all resources in the Union.

Order. I want to remind the hon. member of the motion of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) which deals with this subject of Railway rates. The hon. member will have another opportunity of discussing that point.

May I put it this way then, that we feel that the Minister must not adopt the attitude that the industries of South. Africa are no concern of the Railways. Take the question of sidings. The development of our secondary industries are of the utmost importance to the Railway Administration because those secondary industries as they develop provide additional traffic for the Railways. I hope the Minister and the Administration will be a little more sympathetically disposed towards this question. The question does not concern only the industries, unless the one assists the other, neither will be able to develop as it should.

I should like to join with those who have congratulated the hon. Minister on his elevation to higher rank. May one express the hope that he will administer the affairs of the new department with the same grace, tact and modesty which characterised his handling of the affairs of the Department of Railways and Harbours. Among the few matters to which I want to refer is one the answer to which is unfortunately standing over. As a matter of fact it has been standing over for some two years. I raised the matter not last Session but the Session before and for some reason which is beyond my comprehension the hon. Minister did not see fit to give me an answer. I raised the matter again last Session, and I am still without an answer, and the matter is of sufficiently wide importance to justify my raising it again, and if I may say so, rather insisting this time that the Minister should give an answer. I can assume what the answer is. I raised the question as to what was the justification for the discrimination on the part of the Administration as between men who had joined up before a certain day, arbitrarily chosen, and men who had joined up subsequently. Men who joined up as from a given dae—a date which I do not happen to recall at the moment—were granted a ration allowance of 2s. per day. Men who had joined up previously and who logically, if anybody was entitled to preference, were entitled to this added consideration because they joined up as soon as it was possible, have not enjoyed this ration allowance. And I may say that it affects a large number of railwaymen who, because there is no logic and fairness in the discrimination, resent it very much. As to what the Department intends, I say that I can assume what the answer is. The answer will be that the Department is not prepared to put these men on the same footing and I say that because in the time that has elapsed the Government has given no indication that it is prepared to do so. But one would like to know from the Minister what the justification is for the differentiation, why in point of fact the men who ought to have greater consideration shown to them have in this particular respect been shown less consideration and what is tantamount to a discrimination against them. Then there is another matter of relatively less importance that I want to raise. I am under the impression that it falls under the jurisdiction of the hon. Minister. For many years there was a quarantine hospital in Durban on Salisbury Island. It has been removed, and one has been built in the Finlands area. One does not know, of course, what the reason for the change is, and it must be presumed that there was good and sufficient cause for the Administration to remove this hospital.

It is a matter for Public Health.

I am sorry; I shall raise it on a later occasion. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter that was brought to my notice, and I want to express the hope that this reflects isolated cases, and not a practice on the part of the Administration. It also concerns men who have been on active service and who, like so many others, have been overpaid by the Defence Department. I have come into contact with two cases where the Administration, without any reference to the man concerned, fixed a figure by which the overcharge was to be liquidated monthly, and in the one case where the man earned a very modest wage, the amount fixed by the Administration was £7. This man realises that he is obliged to repay the overcharge. This is not the time to raised the question of the overpayments, but I do suggest that it would have been more in accord with equity to have asked the two men concerned what they felt they could afford to repay, and not to have fixed the amount arbitrarily with the risk of penalising these people by requiring them to repay an amount monthly which is, in fact, beyond their means. I also want to tell the hon. Minister that the newly constructed Wine Buffet on the Durban station seems to me not only to have been unnecessary but unfortunate. I say unfortunate in view of the difficulties which so many people experience in getting permits for modest dwellings. The Administration within a matter of a few days was able to get a permit to put a structure to offer facilities for liquor which already exist on the Durban station. I say that this was unnecessary and in the circumstances unfortunate. The City Council of Durban has been most anxious to enjoy the help and the co-operation of the Administration in relation to the plans which it is now in the course of preparing for the post-war period, and in the light of that desire, has approached the Administration with the suggestion that this co-operation should take place and invited some representatives of the Administration to meet a special committee which had been set up by the City Council. The Administration took official note of the request and there the matter ended. The hon. Minister in due course paid a visit to Durban which was much appreciated, but while there he went right off the rails by rebuking the Mayor and Council of the City for not getting on with their plans. There are two aspects of this matter. One is that it ill behoves a Minister …

A modest Minister.

More so if he is a modest Minister—it ill behoves a Minister to create an atmosphere of enstrangement between a Government Department and the body in control of local affairs, more particularly when the rebuke which is administered to such a body has no justification, and when in fact, if any rebuke is called for, it is from the Council to the Administration which as in the present case is clearly and unjustifiably wrong. So that I say it is most unfortunate when a Minister seeks to go out of his way to rebuke the Mayor and Council of any city, more particularly if there is no ground and no substance whatever in the reflection administered by the Minister. But the matter does not end there. This is not merely a private quarrel. The City Council is anxious to know the plans of the Railway Administration in order to reach finality with its plans, and it still has only a formal acknowledgement from the Administration. I say that until the Administration indicates that it is prepared to co-operate with the Council and give some indication of what it has in mind in relation to the post-war period, it is holding up and jeopardising the post-war planning of the city. And an instance of that relates to the future of Durban, as an airport. It seems to be generally conceded that there are difficulties in the way of Durban remaining a suitable flying base centre. I am not merely pressing the claims of Durban because it happens to be Durban; but no such difficulties have been raised as far as I am aware, in regard to Durban remaining an airport. It is generally known that the present aerodrome will not be licensed again. The Municipality is busy with large housing schemes, particularly in regard to returned soldiers. It wants to know, as it is entitled to know, whether it should set aside any of this land that is available for its future airport, and I refer to that merely as an illustration of the type of difficulty that is created when the Administration tacitly refuses to co-operate with the Municipality, and I hope that we shall see an end to this unfortunate relationship which the rebuke of the Minister has tended to emphasise and that we shall have a statement from the Minister when he replies that there is going to be not merely formal cooperation, but that there is going to be real and genuine and intense co-operation, because if there is it will be to the advantage not only of the Municipality but equally to the advantage of the Administration.

There are just one or two points which I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice. I understood the hon. member for Durban Central (Mr. Derbyshire) to find fault with the Administration in connection with the treatment or consideration, or concession—or call it what you like—to which members of Parliament feel they are entitled, and which they do not get. I want to say at once that in many respects the Railway Administration is open to severe criticism, but my experience has always been that we as members of Parliament receive the greatest possible consideration from the Railways. I was in the Transvaal recently. My seat for my return journey had been reserved for the subsequent Saturday. I was in Pretoria then and I had to return suddenly. I went to the station and explained my difficulty, and notwithstanding the present difficulties Mr. Venter—I think I may mention his name—an official employed at the Railway station, went out of his way and reserved seats for myself and my friend who was travelling with me. And that was not the only instance I can mention. I can mention other instances where the Railway people went out of their way to meet me. I was in Johannesburg recently, and I unexpectedly had to come to Cape Town, and my seat was again reserved. In this respect the Railway Administration have always met me, and at Pietersburg nobody has ever had any reason for complaint. I feel it my duty to say so. It is contended that we as members of Parliament are entitled to more consideration than the ordinary members of the public because members of Parliament look upon themselves more or less as the Directors of the Railways. The Minister has for several days been listening to very constructive criticism from all sides of the House about the Railways. He pays nothing for that constructive criticism, he gets it for nothing. We have a committee sitting upstairs for days on end throughout the Session, and any advice that committee can give is at the disposal of the Railways and I am therefore of opinion that the consideration we enjoy is not given to us entirely for nothing. While I am speaking on this subject there is one point I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s notice. I feel this is a point on which he should meet members—it is in connection with the free Railway passes which members get to travel on the Railways. I want to ask the Minister to make those passes available for the Railway buses as well. We know that many hon. members have to make use of Railway buses in their constituencies. I do not have to use Railway buses in my constituency, but we know that other members have to travel on them in connection with their Parliamentary activities. I know of members for instance who have had to come to Parliament; their families are here and they take their motor cars with them. Now they go back to their constituencies and there is a bus from the station to their homes, but they cannot use their passes on that bus. I think we only need to bring this matter to the Minister’s notice to get him to put it right. I notice that our Parliamentary pass says that it is a free pass over all Railway lines, and I understand that an interpretation has been given that the Railway bus does not go over a Railway line, but in the days when this arrangement was arrived at between the House of Parliament and the Railways there were no Railway buses, and I hope the Minister will agree to make the buses available in the same way, so that members of Parliament who have to use the Railway buses will be able to do so. Now there are a few other points which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice in regard to matters affecting the Railway Department. The first point concerns the transport of kraal manure. I don’t know whether this matter has already been raised in the House but I want to say a few word about it. The position in the Northern Transvaal is as follows: We have large areas where natives have been living for hundreds of years. In parts where the natives have had their locations and still have them, there is kraal manure lying four, five or six feet high. Thousands of tons of kraal manure are available there. Now first of all the natives do not use that kraal manure, and secondly there are many areas where they cannot use that kraal manure. We know that there is a great shortage of kraal manure today, and I want to appeal to the Minister to see to it that better transport for kraal manure is provided. One has to go to a lot of trouble to get it moved by the Railways. The Railways do not do it free of charge, they charge the full rate. The farmer pays a small amount—I think it is one fifth or one tenth, and the balance is made up by the Department of Agriculture. Farmers are encouraged today to produce and produce more—let hon. members realise what it will mean to them if they can get this kraal manure, these thousands of tons which are actually available. Now let me tell hon. members why I ask the hon. Minister to look into this question. What is going on now is this: Say for instance a bus is available; that bus is not very busy some days and the authorities say: “The bus can carry kraal manure today”. In those areas where there is kraal manure the farmers have no native labour to load up the manure. The farmer needs all his natives for his own work. Perhaps he keeps his natives ready for three or four days in the hope that the bus will be available. When eventually the bus is available the natives may not be there. The farmer does not know when the bus will be there to carry manure. I know of cases where the bus could only be used one single day, the next day it had to carry on with its ordinary work. Such a lot of money could be saved and such a lot of labour could be saved if the Railway authorities would only set about things in the right way. Three or four trailers could be attached to the bus. It has been done before, but because things are not properly organised and not properly arranged it means that the bus takes only one load along and then the next week it will take another load. If the business is organised on a proper basis more manure could be carried than is the case today. A great saving could be effected because the bus need not load only one trailer; it can easily take along three or four trailers. That has been done in the past, but owing to the work not being organised properly it means that the bus goes up and down a few times without trailers and then the next day it may perhaps transport manure again. If it is properly organised it will be much better for the farmers and it will mean more revenue for the Railways. I am sure that if the Minister will give instructions for this matter to be properly enquired into, something much more effective can be achieved, which will be for the good of all concerned. Now I also want to bring to the Minister’s notice the conditions under which the staff at Pietersburg have to work. I am thinking particularly of the goods shed and of the ordinary labourers employed there. I know that the subject of their pay has been dealt with here ad nauseam. Anyhow, their pay is hopelessly low. These people are principally farmers who have come from the farms. Now they have to live in the towns, their costs of living are high, they have to live under most miserable conditions, and they have to struggle hard to keep body and soul together. And what happens? My remarks about the position at Pietersburg also apply to certain other places. I only hope that what I am going to say will not be used as a reason to put these men in an even more unfortunate position. The fact is that those labourers have to work every Sunday. Sunday work is not an exception. They are not asked to work only on certain Sundays because there is heavy traffic on those days, but they have to work every Sunday of their lives and they are grateful that they can do so because they say that if they do not work on Sundays they do not earn enough to live. If they do not get the money for their Sunday work they do not earn enough on ordinary working days to make ends meet. A position like that cannot be tolerated in a Christian country. These people are Christians and they want to go to church, they want to send their children to Sunday school, and they want to spend a quiet Sunday. The economic conditions compel them to work on Sundays. I quite believe that the Railways will say that if they do not want to work they need not do so, but if they don’t work they cannot make ends meet. These people work very hard. I have seen with my own eyes how they have to work from early morning until night without a minute’s rest, and on top of it all they have to work on Sundays. They never get a rest and it is impossible for them to carry on like that. I am convinced that now that the Minister’s attention has been drawn to the position, these things will be altered. These people cannot go on working like that without a rest. I do not want the Railways to step in and deprive these men of their seventh day’s pay, because if they do that, the men will be even worse off than they are today. I hope the Minister will see to it that they receive proper remuneration for their six days’ work. It is not only in their own interest that they should have a day’s rest but also in the interest of the Administration. There are other railwaymen too in the same position—we know for instance, what the station foreman is expected to do. In my constituency there are some station foremen who have to do very responsible work. That also applies of course to other station foremen. The lives of the travelling public depend on their work and on their efficiency and today we have many more trains running than in the past. These people consistently have to work twelve hours per day, year in and year out. Is it fair? That also applies to the drivers, the firemen and the conductors. These men often have to do as much as sixteen hours work per day. It is a marvel we have so few accidents on the Railway when we have conditions like that. One would have expected more accidents, and great credit is due to the people who work so many hours because it is due to their efficiency that we have so few accidents. A calculation of the hours they put in would show that they work from 45 to 60 days per month. It may be argued that war conditions are responsible, but surely the lives and safety of the travelling public require better provisions being made. Then there is another matter which is perhaps only of local importance, but I want to bring it to the Minister’s notice, and I want to say in advance that I am grateful that the Minister proposes paying us a visit. There is a goods shed at Pietersburg which was condemned many years ago, not only as unserviceable but also from a health point of view. The district surgeon and the health officer condemned it as unsuitable for people to work in. That does not just date back to the beginning of the war, it dates back to many years ago—and for many years that unhappy state of affairs has prevailed that people have had to work under such conditions. Bugs and other vermin render working conditions most unpleasant. Many young women and men have to work there, and surely these people who are employed by the Administration are entitled to more consideration. When I was in Pretoria I was surprised to see the small offices in which six men had to sit to attend to the reservation of seats, hovels they were, 15 ft. by 15 ft. It was impossible to carry on a conversation with one man without the attention of the next man being detracted from his work. How those people can do their work is a mystery to me. At Potgietersrust the position is also most unsatisfactory. Some of the buildings there were burnt down. I am glad to hear that the Administration is now trying partly to rebuild the place, but it’s no use just rebuilding part of the premises. The thing has to be tackled as a whole. We should have a proper station there. The Potgietersrust district has gone ahead very much. We in Pietersburg are really jealous of Potgietersrust. A big tobacco co-operative society has been moved from Pietersburg to Potgietersrust and big developments have taken place. But when one looks at the old decrepit station building, it is really a scandal. The station building at Potgietersrust is absolutely useless. I only hope the Minister and the Railway Board will carry out their promise to visit Potgietersrust so that they may see with their own eyes what the position is, and that they will decide on improvements being made. There is another point which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, and that is the sale of fruit on the Railways and also on the stations. After the discussion we have had on the subject in Parliament one would have thought that fruit would have been made available at a reasonable price at the various stations, but it seems that the Railways are among the biggest sinners of all. If one travels by train and sees the prices that are charged, one feels appalled. I assume the Railway Administration does not sell fruit at the stations, but still, it is the Administration’s duty to see that the prices charged are reduced. For a small 1 lb. tray of grapes the charge is 1s.

Well, people should buy under the Deciduous Fruit Board scheme.

†*Mr. NAUDÉ: Very well, but the price in Cape Town is 6d. today which is still too high, and the Railways have no right to sell those same grapes for 1s. In the interest of the farmers the Railways should encourage the consumption of fruit as much as possible. No matter where you take a meal, in the station diningrooms in Cape Town or Johannesburg, there should always be fruit. It should be unnecessary to have to ask for fruit. Fruit should be on hand for the public at all times. The Railway Administration should give as much publicity as possible to South African products, but so far as fruit is concerned the Railway Administration is not doing its duty. Something must be done to supply fruit cheaper at the stations. I just want to ask the Minister whether those of us who travel regularly to the Transvaal can still get boxes of fruit at places like De Dooms and elsewhere, so that we can take the fruit home with us. We used to do so in the past, and I do not know whether it is still possible. In the interest of the travelling public I just want to put these points to the Minister.

I think the Minister should make a statement about the Cape Town station. A tremendous controversy is going on in our local papers about the station. It appears that there are two schemes, the one is the Railway Administration’s scheme, and the other is that of the City Council of Cape Town. As a result of the great reclamation 240 morgen of land have been made available. That land has been reclaimed by the Department of Railways but the whole plan has now to be fitted in with the Town Planning Scheme, and it seems that there is a serious difference of opinion between the Cape Town City Engineer and the General Manager of Railways. I only want to say this, that the public feel that certain financial interests in Cape Town want to arrange this whole business in the way they want it for their own benefit. We don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes. We want the Minister to take the House into its confidence so that the country may know what is going to happen, and how and where the new station will be built; what the lay-out of the land is going to be; how the land is going to be sold and so on. I believe that the Department of Lands is also concerned in this matter. But in Cape Town there are two sections, the one which sides with the Minister and the other which sides with the City Council. In regard to those who side with the City Council it is alleged—I don’t say that the allegation is justified—that they are out for their own personal gain. The Minister must not allow private individuals to take advantage of the position to fill their own pockets. The land has been reclaimed and belongs to the State and the State must derive the benefit from it and not private individuals. Now, there is another matter. I recently called on the General Manager of Railways in regard to a young engineer who has qualified at the local university in Cape Town; he is an electrical engineer. I went to all the Government Departments but it appears that an embargo has been imposed on this man and that they will not employ him in the Railway Service. I have discussed the matter with the Minister and he tells me that if there is an embargo he knows nothing about it. But I want the Minister to make sure that he does not lose the services of people of that kind. I have drawn the Minister’s attention to the case of a young man who in four years took his examination as an electrical engineer. He passed in very quick time, but that man is still unemployed today, and yet the Department of Railways only last week advertised for a number of pupil engineers. The Government have big schemes regarding the electrification of the Railways after the war and the Minister should not allow this type of man to go elsewhere. The Minister will need his services. The day may come when it may be difficult to get such people, so the Minister should make sure of their services. I am afraid that unless we take some precautions we may be told afterwards again that we cannot get these people in the country and that they will have to be imported from overseas. Now I also want to say something about Railway medical officers. There is grave dissatisfaction among the Railway people with the services they get from the Railway doctor. Hon. members may say that the Railway medical officer is controlled by the sick fund, but I know that the Administration also has something to do with the appointments. The sick fund recommends, but the final appointment is made by the Railway Administration, and I can tell the House that the Railway workers in my constituency are all dissatisfied with the Railway doctor they have there. They even go so far as to say that he is absolutely incompetent. And if hon. members were to look into matters in the Peninsula and institute enquiries as far as Simonstown, they would also find considerable dissatisfaction. Last year I had something to do with a case at Newlands where a man had a haemorrhage. It was a serious case, but although the man was a Railway official he could not get hold of the Railway doctor. Only a day after he had got ill did the doctor put in an appearance, and even after he had seen him he did not take steps to get him into hospital. So I intervened and eventually succeeded in getting a bed for the patient in one of the local hospitals. I know that I could have brought this case to the Minister’s personal notice but it is no use doing so. The public should know what is going on and if the Railway doctors know that the people’s dissatisfaction is ventilated in this House, it may help perhaps in improving the position. I know that the Minister has the health of his employees at heart and that he will see to it that good medical services are provided. Now there is another urgent matter in my constituency—it is in regard to trucks and bucksails. The Minister knows that I have discussed this question with him, and I have received a letter stating that an official has been sent to enquire into the position—I have received a lone letter, which I appreciate. In spite of this I am now informed that there are not sufficient trucks and bucksails in the Gordonia constituency. I have a letter here from the Chairman of the Orange River Co-operative Society reading as follows [Translation]—

The man who wrote that is a very complacent sort of person, and when he goes to the length of writing a letter like that to his member of Parliament about the actions of the department, it shows that the position is bad. It means that the farmers are thoroughly dissatisfied. Now the Minister will probably say it is due to the war that he has no trucks and that he has no rolling stock. Well, let the Minister go fully into the question and let him tell the people what the position is, and also that he will in future provide a certain number of trucks. They will then know over a period of time how many trucks they will be able to get every month. I hope the Minister will also give this matter his attention. Now I want to say this in connection with the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. I have the case here of a certain Mr. Best. He was a clerk in the Claims Office in Cape Town and he was promoted to Baggage Master at the Docks. He has been employed there now for more than two years. He knows nothing about the work, but the staff are carrying him and helping him to do the work. He was unnecessarily promoted over the heads of other people who were thoroughly bilingual, and whenever he goes on leave unilingual men are put into his place, although there are competent bilingual men to do his work. I have told the House word for word what I have been told in writing. This is a report given to me and I hope the Minister will give this matter his attention as well. Here is a man who is promoted and who has not got the qualifications for the post to which he is promoted. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) may perhaps say that there has been discrimination in his favour. This is the kind of discrimination which we are opposed to. I notice in the Report of the Auditor-General that a certificate in regard to the safety of the Railways—as provided for in the Act—is not being issued today. This is a serious matter. In terms of the Act the Auditor-General is required to obtain a certificate from the Chief Engineer stating that the Railways are safe for the public, but the Auditor-General says that such a certificate cannot be issued but that the Railways are reasonably safe. I hope the position will change so that next year a certificate can again be issued. Railway accidents are on the increase. Recently, there was an accident at Artois, an axle or something broke, resulting in a serious accident, hundreds of head of cattle were lost, and the damage amounted to thousands of pounds.

If the Minister of Railways does not know all the sins of omission and commission of his administration now, I should say he never will, but as a matter of fact, although this debate has covered a long period of time, the number of matters raised in criticism of the Railway Administration is relatively few. Notwithstanding that. I have here in front of me some 68 pages of notes dealing with matters to which hon. members expect replies. It will be appreciated, therefore, that my reply now must take a little time. It will be very detailed, and very dull, but I hope hon. members will not blame me for that; the fault lies with them that they asked so many questions. I do not, of course, complain. This debate on the Railways and Harbours Part Appropriation Bill has gradually grown to be regarded as something of a Railway budget, and it presents a very good opportunity for airing any matter on which members may feel strongly, or otherwise in connection with our affairs. It is unfortunate, in a way, that it has to be done on a second reading, because second reading proceeding entails a huge accumulation of notes before any matter can be dealt with. Now, Mr. Speaker, what struck me, and I am sure must have struck this House about the debate, was that there was in regard to the main theme of the debate an air of considerable unreality; members of the Opposition fulminated against things generally which have no existence in fact. They painted a picture of seething discontent in the Railway Administration and amongst the Railway staffs. There is no seething discontent among the Railway staffs or connected with the administration in any way. If there is any seething discontent anywhere, that seething discontent is amongst hon. members opposite, and we on this side of the House can well understand it. There is no racialism or politics in the Railways.

With a Minister like that.

I know a great deal more about the Railways than the hon. member opposite does. There is no racialism or politics in the Railway Administration today. There is no racialism or politics amongst the members of the staff in their relationships one with the other. This I know does not suit hon. members opposite. They do not want content; they do not want satisfaction amongst the staff. It is because that is the atmosphere today, that hon. members opposite are doing their best to stir up trouble, to stir up strife, trying to stir the railwaymen up against their better judgment; but I can assure them that they will have to be much more effective than they have been during this debate, and to bring many more cases of hardship and injustice if they are to impress the Railway staffs. We had very much the same debate as this last year. Indeed, my speech of last year might almost be used word for word in reply to the debate that has just taken place. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) laughs.

With good reason.

I will give you a good reason for laughing, but not on your side. Last year I went out of my way to explain what our promotions policy on the Railways was. I explained it in great detail and at great length. I explained it so that the whole country should understand it. The hon. member admitted efficiency should be the first consideration. I explained that policy then in great detail. After that explanation, the country having heard what I had to say, we had a general election. I say that if there is anyone that has the laugh in that matter, it is this side, and if you want justification for that I suggest that you compare the benches opposite now with what they were last year when I explained my policy. If they continue to worry the country and to worry this House by harping on this untuneful string I am afraid that after the next election they will be an even sorrier lot than now.

You won’t be here.

There is much more likelihood of my being here than you. Apart from rather wild generalities and allegations of seething discontent, which have no existence in fact, the hon. member for Piquetberg had very little to say in support of his amendment. As a matter of fact, the very nature of his amendment shows the poorness of his case, the barrenness of the land. The hon. member mentioned two promotions and mentioned two officers by name, rather improperly—and let me say at this stage that I must once more protest against the dragging of officers’ names into the arena of party politics. These men have no opportunity of replying for themselves. The hon. member for Piquetberg made some remarks against Mr. Chittenden, an officer who is held in the highest esteem, who has the complete confidence of the Administration and the Government. He tried to besmirch his name, throw mud at him. I say that to do that in this particular way is hitting below the belt. The hon. member for Piquetberg may not know what hitting below the belt means; if he does not someone will have to explain it to him. But apart from mentioning these two names, what do hon. members opposite ask for? They ask for a roving enquiry into the staff affairs of the South African Railways. In effect, they say in this motion: “We are specially interested in a couple of officers, but we have a feeling that we may get a little more ammunition if we were only to look through all your papers, have a commission of enquiry, and see just what has been going on.” An effort to worm out some “skandaals” which will give them some ammunition to fill up the ammunition lockers which at the moment are completely empty. The hon. member for Piketberg is not without experience of government, he is not without experience of putting up a case in Parliament, and if we were to ask him to answer the question honestly he would admit that he has not even put up a prima facie case for an enquiry.

So far you have been evading the issue.

May I ask first of all what is wrong with the appointment of Mr. Chittenden and Col. Marshall Clark?

You tell us what is right.

I dealt with Mr. Chittenden’s appointment last year, and I need not go over the ground again but take Col. Marshall Clark’s appointment. Does the hon. member say that I acted improperly or illegally in making that appointment? In this case there was no question of seniority. Seniority, as hon. members know, under the Railway laws, only comes into operation when the efficiency of officers is otherwise equal. There was no question of equality of efficiency for this particular work. In what way did I act improperly—why should there be an enquiry? The first thing is to prove that I acted improperly.

It is a question of your motive.

Apart altogether from that; I am not going to weary the House by reading the section which controls these things, but this appointment was not made by me, it was made through the machinery established by law in order to make appointments on the South African Railways. And what does that machinery comprise? First, the Railway Service Commission who must make the original recommendation. It then goes to the Management who must endorse or differ from that recommendation. In this case they both agreed. Only then does it come to me for confirmation, but if at that stage I, as Minister, do something which is not fair or reasonable, anyone who has a grievance as a result of that appointment can immediately appeal to the Railway Board. I know hon. members will try and throw mud at the Railway Board, but let me tell them that the Railway Board has established among the staff of the Railways, who are in the best position to judge, a reputation for fairness and justice such as no Railway Board ever before has enjoyed. I did not appoint this officer because I liked his looks, he was appointed in accordance with the ordinary machinery of the law. Then the allegation was made: “Look how rapidly Col. Marshall Clark has been promoted.” Here is another “skandaal.” Twenty-two and a half years it took Col. Marshall Clark from the time he started with the Railways until he reached a salary of £2,000. Twenty-two and a half years! What has the hon. member to say about the more rapid cases in the Railways—what has he to say about the officer who jointed in 1925, when the hon. member for Piquetberg was a member of the Government, and who in 1939, fourteen years later, before I became Minister, had reached the salary of £2,200?

He had an Afrikaans name.

I make no allegations; I just want to show that this talk about Col. Clark’s promotion being exceptionally rapid is nonsense, but it is no more nonsense than anything else that has been said by hon. members opposite.

But you were in the Government at that time.

What Government was it, to whom do you refer?

I shall give the name in private if the hon. member wishes it. I am not going to bandy any names across the floor of the House.

Obviously it was your own Government.

Quite obviously, if this officer is making £2,200 he will not be difficult to find. No, the fact remains that nothing has been shown against me as having acted illegally or improperly, or having promoted anyone unduly rapidly, or that my fairness has been in any way questioned in regard to this appointment.

You are praising yourself.

It is true, of course, that when I happen to appoint an Afrikaans-speaking officer, as I often do, to a higher position in the Railways, I am a model of justice and fairness. Then I am the bonnie blue-eyed boy of my hon. friends opposite, and even the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) will smile on me then, but let me appoint someone with an English name—notwithstanding the fact that he speaks Afrikaans fluently, then I am the villain of the piece at once; then I am guilty of racial bias, I am guilty of everything which hon. members know is contrary to everything I have done and contrary to the policy I have continually followed. I have no interest at all in the home language or the name of any officer on the Railways, I am only interested in his efficiency and his suitablility for any appointment in the Railways. The hon. member for Piquetberg inveighed against me because he alleged that I had breached the language provisions of the South Africa Act. Apart altogether from the fact that Col. Clark is fluently and fully bilingual, there is nothing in the law, as the hon. member knows, to compel me in every case to appoint a fully bilingual officer. A clerk must be fully bilingual but the only qualifications otherwise laid down in the Act, so far as language is concerned, are that I shall be satisfied that the officer appointed has the language qualifications necessary for the efficient discharge of his duties, so even if I was not fully bilingual in my policy I would still not be breaking the law if I observed that. But as the hon. member knows, and as Railway servants will tell him, and as my friends the Dominionites will tell him, we are more determinedly bilingual in our appointments than the Railways have ever been. I take no credit for that, because it is easier today to be fully bilingual than my predecessors found it. It was easier in the past to make no appointments at all than to make bilingual appointments.

What is the test? Is it your own opinion?

The test varies according to circumstances. But my hon. friend’s Government did the same. He knows the difficulties which we have on the Railways; he knows that times out of number one cannot get a bilingual man, and let me tell the hon. member this: I have appointed many Afrikaans unilingual men.

Tell that to the Marines.

Give us a single name.

But now there is another matter, another very important feature of this question and I personally think it is fundamental. I think this is the fundamental issue between ourselves and hon. members opposite. This House and hon. members opposite among them hold me responsible for everything that is done on the South African Railways.

Of course we do.

If a mistake is made, if an error occurs, if anything goes wrong, the Minister of Railways is responsible and no one else. He is responsible to Parliament and Parliament, quite rightly, holds him responsible, and I do not shirk that responsibility in any way. But if hon. members on the opposite side are going to dictate to me whom I am going to appoint as my advisers and as the men who have to carry out the work of the Railways, then obviously they cannot blame me if things go wrong. Not even members opposite can have it both ways. If I am responsible to Parliament for the proper and safe running of the Railways, then surely they must leave it to me to see who is to be appointed.

What an argument!

That is fundamental. I say it is not only an argument, it is a fundamental issue. I know it does not suit hon. members. They are entitled to question my judgment, and to say that I have appointed the wrong man but the ultimate decision must rest with me. It is only my judgment which must prevail there, and hon. members can criticise what I have done if they feel so disposed.

What about that Commission?

That being the case, while I am quite prepared to listen to the views of hon. members opposite, as to whom should have been appointed or who should not have been appointed, I bring the House down to this fact, and it is apropos of the amendment, that the only thing they can question about these appointments, provided they have been legally carried out, is whether the judgment of the Minister is right. Now, how can any roving commission discover—any commission going back to 1939, even to 1910, as someone suggested—how can any roving commission of that sort discover whether the Minister’s judgment was right or wrong? No, the hon. member has not made out a shadow of a case.

Even for your judgment you are responsible to Parliament, are you not?

I am responsible for my judgment to Parliament, but not to a roving commission of members of Parliament who have no knowledge and nothing else to judge by.

That is begging the question.

No, Parliament can itself question my judgment; Parliament can turn me out of office if it thinks I have done wrongly, but having laid down the principle that the advisers who have to keep me right are to be appointed by me—if there is any difference of opinion between the hon. member for Piketberg and myself, the fact that I am responsible decides that my judgment and not the hon. member for Piketberg’s judgment is going to prevail.

You are not a Scotchman now, you are an Irishman.

Now I come to the second part of the amendment, and let me here say that some of the remarks which the hon. member for Piketberg made—with some of these I found myself in agreement. I am personally opposed to the principle of adjusting grades in the case of new appointments to suit the officers. I agree that jobs should be graded according to the salary which the job merits. The hon. member admitted, of course, and I admit his frankness in doing it, that it is sometimes necessary to alter grades. I can assure the hon. member that speaking as far as the principle of the thing is concerned I believe that the job should carry the salary for which it is rated. Ibelieve the job should carry the salary which it is worth, but in a big service like the Railways you often find a relatively junior officer who is particularly well equipped from the standard of efficiency to take a particular job, but the grade of that job is much in excess of his age, and of all the other considerations, and to bring him up to a very high grading, while it might be eminently fair, would inevitably cause a great deal of discontent in the Service. But there is good reason, too, for that, because that particular man put into that particular job may have qualifications suitable for that job, but he may be no cleverer than his contemporaries in other parts of the Service. In these cases I admit that I have changed the grade to make it more suitable to the position of the appointee rather than give him the full salary which, if he had all the experience, he should have. I may say that this is not a policy confined to me. In the past it has been done regularly. But the hon. member for Piketberg admitted that; and I agree with him in principle that these things should be avoided if possible and that there had to be some special reason in my case for agreeing.

That’s a very frank admission

Let me assure this House that I have never used that in order to exercise any favouritism in respect of an appointment, or to find any kind of a job for apal. The efficiency of the person is not always all round. One employee may be very efficient in one particular direction, and another in another direction—both may be very efficient railwaymen, and it would be unfair to raise one several hundred pounds as against the other. Now the last part of the amendment deals with the alleged injustices done to senior, and particularly, to Afrikaans-speaking officials. The alleged injustices: Who made the allegations? I have never heard of them. I do not count the allegations made by hon. members opposite. They are made for political and party reasons. Did any Railway servant make these allegations? Well, they never made them to me. Did any staff association make them? If they have, they have never made them to me, and it is rather strange that they should not have done so. Someone gets up and alleges something. And merely because of an allegation I have to appoint a commission to go into the affairs of the Railways for the last five years, to upset the whole staff, and to make all the party political trouble possible. Before I accept any alleged injustices I want to know who alleged these injustices, and the grounds for the allegations; and then I want to know whether the matter is of sufficient importance to justify my taking up the time of Parliament and of its members to make an enquiry of this kind. I am sorry I cannot agree to this latest idea of a heresy hunt. I have done nothing illegal or improper. I take full responsibility for any grading changes I have made, and I am prepared to explain any one of them if any hon. member is interested in a particular case. But the Government’s judgment, as I have shown, must be final as to the man best able to serve in a particular job. The responsibility is with the Government and their decision must be final.

You are a good competitor with Stalin.

In regard to Col. Clark’s promotion, his new department calls for great organising capacity, as well as for a high degree of technical ability, and he possesses both these qualifications. Therefore, I say that my judgment must prevail. I say that no prima facie case has been made out for this enquiry.

You are merely riding the high horse.

Now I want to get to the other part of my speech. I want to deal first of all with one or two statements made by the hon. member for Piketberg. He waxed eloquent and indignant at the General Manager’s references in a report about the practice which has grown up in this House of bandying officers’ names across the floor of the House. I must say that I agree with every word the General Manager said. But the hon. member for Piquetberg described his references as impertinent, and he used other language—rather intemperate language about the General Manager. I think the hon. member forgets the nature of this report. This report of the General Manager’s is a report to the Minister of Railways—it is not a report to Parliament, but to the Minister of Railways.

What difference does that make?

It makes this difference: Are you going to prevent the General Manager from expressing his opinions about anything said or done in criticism of his department to his Minister? That would indeed be an interference with the rights of the individual. The General Manager can be attacked in open debate by hon. members opposite but he must not tell me what he thinks about it—he is not to express his opinion to me, his Minister! I say that it would be a monstrous interference with the rights of the individual.

Was that report laid on the Table of the House?

This report was addressed to me.

But was it laid on the Table of the House afterwards?

Certainly. But that does not alter its nature. It gives you the right to criticise it, but it does not give hon. members the right to accuse the General Manager of being impertinent—it does not give the hon. members the right to use intemperate language. No, if hon. members do not like the General Manager to report to the Minister in this way they can easily prevent it by avoiding these discussions in the House. I certainly shall not tie the General Manager’s hands.

It is not a criticism of you, it is a criticism of Parliament.

Cannot the General Manager tell his Minister what his opinion is of the criticism of his department in Parliament?

Certainly not.

If Parliament criticises a General Manager, cannot he explain the situation from his point of view to his Minister? The hon. member says: “Certainly not”. Well, if that is so I can say nothing further. The hon. member went on to refer to powerful influences exercised in regard to appointments of English-speaking officers. I want to say that in five years’ Administration of the Railways I have never heard of this before. I have never come across these powerful influences which were used to ensure the appointment of English-speaking officers. I would be glad if the hon. member would indicate to me what these influences are? Are they the Sons of England, or the Caledonian Society?

No, the Broederbond.

Are they a secret organisation which must not be spoken of?

Certainly.

Well, I have heard of secret organisations influencing appointments in other directions but I have never heard of secret organisations influencing the appointment of English-speaking servants of the State. But I am genuine in this—if there are any influences at work which I have to safeguard myself against, I shall be only too glad to hear what they are because I do not want anything to influence me to be partial to English-speaking officials any more than to Afrikaans-speaking officials. He also went on to allege that I was bringing Col. Clark in to be General Manager of Railways. Were I to adopt his line about the General Manager I would say that that statement is a presumtuous statement. The hon. member has no title whatever to attribute motives to me which he cannot in any way justify. How should I be concerned with the future General Manager of Railways? The new General Manager of Railways will in the ordinary course of things not be appointed for some time to come, whether I am Minister then or not I cannot foretell, but it is obvious that at this stage any Minister would be foolish to concern himself with things like that. Let me say this, that even if I am not Minister the chances are that this Government will be in power and I can assure hon. members that when it comes to the appointment of a new General Manager, the most efficient man in the Railway service will be chosen. All this talk will not frighten us from doing our duty to the State. Now, I would just like to refer to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood). I have already replied to one or two of the matters which he raised, but he also dealt with Mr. Carter’s position. Let me explain the position there. It was decided in 1942 to alter the grades of superintendent staff and the position of superintendent operating in Johannesburg and to raise the salary from £1,200 to £1,400. The senior eligible officers were the incumbents of the posts at the time, and both were appointed. One of these officers was English-speaking and the other was Afrikaans-speaking. The selection was made from seven senior officers in the £1,200 class, and of these three were Afrikaans-speaking and four English-speaking. The promotions took place in the natural order of seniority, each officer retaining the position held prior to the regrading. Hence ulterior motives were absent. An English-speaking officer did not succeed an Afrikaans-speaking officer, and had the post not been regraded the officers promoted to the higher grades would have continued in the same position. The contention that promotion was blocked to officers in the lower grades cannot be sustained. Mr. Carter was appointed to Kimberley in accordance with the ordinary procedure. Owing to illness of the senior officer in Kimberley it was necessary for Mr. Carter to go to that centre and when this post became vacant, he kept the job, but this was no promotion, it was merely a transfer at the same rate of salary. Now I hope I have made the position quite clear. The hon. member referred further to some irregularities which he alleged the Railways had been guilty of in connection with the language examination. I do not know of any irregularities in regard to these examinations. Usually the examinations are conducted by the Education Department. There was, of course, some trouble in 1935, and it may be that case when the hon. member is raising. If it is, I suggest he should get a little more up to date, but if there is any other case I shall be glad to get the details and I shall have the matter looked into. We next come to the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley). And let me say that his speech was refreshing after the diatribes I have been listening to. I thank him for his good wishes on my assumption of this Portfolio, and let me say that. I find the co-ordination of transport is making for greater efficiency, is doing away with a lot of overlapping and will undoubtedly help post-war development in this matter. He asked what about the future of air bases. I can assure him that I am entirely in agreement with him when he says that South Africa must play an important part in the world of aviation after this war. All the developments that are going on at the present time are being very carefully watched. It is premature yet to make any definite or concrete statement as to what we intend doing, but plans are being made. We are keeping in touch with developments everywhere, and although it might be difficult now to envisage the final picture, I can assure the hon. member that we shall be ready to act when the time for action comes. I appreciate, and I associate myself with the remarks he made, and which hon. members on this side of the House made, in regard to the work and efforts of our railwaymen in war time. All sections of the railwaymen have stood loyally by the Railway Administration in these difficult years of war, and nothing can be said too highly in praise of everyone from the General Manager downwards. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) and other members, were good enough to refer to this important matter, and I take this opportunity of thanking them. In regard to the Workshops’ Report, I want to say that this has just been received and that it will have careful examination, but it is unlikely that I shall be able to make any statement on it during the present Session. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has spoken, and I have dealt with the main matters raised by him. With regard to the question of monoxide poisoning in Karrier Cobs, may I say that the moment I heard of this I ordered an investigation. It has, however, been an investigation attended with some difficulty. It is not a trouble that is easily solved. But I understand that all difficulties have now been overcome, and although the situation is not perfect, the structural alterations necessary are being undertaken, and will be carried out as quickly as possible. There were only five cases ascribable to monoxide poisoning. But even these cases I do not make light of, and I can assure the hon. member that I shall not let any grass grow under my feet to have that matter rectified. He made reference to my not replying to representations that he made on the 1st December last in regard to washaways on Minnaar’s farm. I should like to explain that the matter is of a kind requiring a very careful and detailed investigation, but I hope to be able to make a reply in a few days’ time. The hon. member for Sunnyside has asked for details in regard to developments at Pretoria, but in this connection I would like to say that I am dealing with the matter in my Budget, and consequently there is no need to deal with it here. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman) spoke on behalf of Mr. Dellis. I may say that I am sorry I have fallen in the estimation of the hon. member. There is no member of the House I should less like to fall in the estimation of than the hon. member for Durban (North). I was moved by his appeal. I was moved to the point of asking the General Manager to send a sympathetic officer to investigate the question of Mr. Dellis. I do not want to be a party in any shape or form, to any alleged or actual injustice. I would, however—after saying that I will have this matter investigated, and that sympathetically—like to make this clear that it is fundamental to the efficient running of the South African Railways that officers must be prepared to transfer from one centre to another. Railway servants, if they are required to take up duty at a certain point, must be prepared to do it in the ordinary way. I know that sometimes we make special exceptions, but it must be very rarely done. If every member who is asked to transfer to another place refused to do so and came to his member of Parliament and raised the question in Parliament, the Railways would have to stop running. After all, this was an apprentice. Danskraal is our big loco repair shop, and the foreman is seven hands short at the present time. It is essential that any apprentice should get good experience by being moved about, and it was quite natural and right that the system manager should insist on this apprentice going to Danskraal. Well, he resigned, which he was entitled to do, but unfortunately resigning at that time brought him under the control of the Controller of Manpower. I have nothing to do with the Controller of Manpower; that is a matter for the Minister of Defence. The Controller of Manpower refused to give him a job, and told him that he had to go back to the Railways, because he reckoned that this man’s job on the Railways was more essential than any other job he could do. Because of that there may be some hardship or injustice. I do not want any man to suffer hardship or injustice, and therefore I have asked for a special enquiry.

Are you prepared to pay him for the five months he was out of work?

I have asked for an enquiry, and I must await the result of that before I can say what I am prepared to do. I want, amongst other things, to make sure that the case is genuine. I come next to the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman). I do not know whether the hon. member is in his place. Very few of the members who took up a lot of my time in this debate are present now to hear what I have to say to them in reply. I suppose I shall have to reply again in the next debate. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg was rather worried over the comparison that he made with the passage in the General Manager’s bulletin in January, 1943, and what the General Manager of Railways and Harbours told the Select Committee on Public Accounts in February, 1942, in regard to war time defence traffic. The General Manager’s remarks before the Committee had reference to the financial year 1940-’41, while the bulletin dealt with the financial year 1943-’44. So one need not be surprised that there was a difference. In February, 1942, the General Manager told the Select Committee that in his opinion there was no justification for saying that the Railways were making a profit at the expense of the Defence Department or the taxpayer. The general manager added that on defence traffic the Railways were just covering expenses. Since then, of course, further rebates have been made to the Defence Department, and these have had the effect of causing a loss on defence traffic since the beginning of the year. Through an unfortunate error—this is an explanation I would have given the hon. member—through a translation error, the General Manger is reported in the Afrikaans version of the bulletin as having stated that defence traffic has been carried at a loss “since the beginning of the war.” The correct version of what the General Manager said was stated in the English version—“Since the beginning of the year”, and owing to the mis-translation some misconception has arisen. I hope the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) is here to hear what I am saying in regard to defence traffic. The hon. member for Albert-Colbesg also said that I had challenged the Opposition to find a single case of a uniligual appointment. I am afraid there is some other mis-translation somewhere, but I would like to make it clear that what I challenged hon. members opposite to do was to give a single case of an illegal appointment and not a unilingual appointment. And I am afraid hon. members must have misunderstood what I said. Incidentally, it would be very foolish to question whether I made a unilingual appointment, because I have often made such appointments both in regard to English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking officials. The hon. member also alleged that the Railways were too much concerned about war work, and were neglecting the provision of trucks. I want to say this, that except for the war work on the Railways the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg might be sitting in a concentration camp discussing the merits or demerits of his German masters. I would not personally have minded that so much, but what I am concerned about is that I might be sitting with him. I can assure the hon. member that a very careful balance has been maintained in regard to war work and Railway work. The Railways, after all, are essential to the war effort of the country, and it would be the height of folly to let them suffer as a result of doing extra war work. That would be a very foolish sacrifice indeed. What is holding up much Railway work is not the fact that we are doing war work, but it is owing to the shortage of manpower and the shortage of material that are essential for specialised Railway work. He also asked again about the men who have been employed during the war, and he indicated that it would be very unfair to get rid of these Railway servants the moment the war was over, especially as these men had helped us during the war. As I have already explained, that is not the policy of the administration. The policy of the administration is to avoid unemployment of any kind, and whilst we shall certainly see that those who return from service will get their jobs back, we shall do everything we can to see that those who have been helping us during the war will get employment. I am not referring to pensioners, who will naturally be the first to go in the event of any retrenchment being necessary. He also raised the question of the manufacture of trucks for the Railways by outside firms. I may say that I am rather surprised at this, because if we cannot get outside firms to manufacture trucks, it may be necessary for us, in order to avoid the manufacture of trucks, to import them; but I suppose the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg would much prefer trucks to be made in this country rather than that they should be imported. I gave the order for two reasons. One was to help the employment position because a large number of heavy industry men were finding work very slack; and I also regarded it as a rather interesting experiment. Anything I can do to establish heavy industries in this country I shall do.

Change your tariffs, and you will encourage it in this country.

The Railway tariffs have a very small bearing on the success or otherwise of an industry. The hon. member probably does not know how little bearing Railway rates really have. As our workshops are full to capacity and we still want more trucks, it was necessary to try this order with an outside firm. It is an experiment. I think it will cost a good deal more than if we imported trucks, but I think the experiment is justified. I may say that for the same reason I am building two tugs in this country. Those tugs will cost more than we could import them for. It is an experiment, but I may also mention that we could not get the tugs anywhere else. I feel that the experiment is justified.

Where are you building them?

I think in Durban; I am not quite sure. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) appealed for better wage and housing conditions for the lower paid staff. Various other members also raised that point. I can assure the hon. members that the employment and the amelioration of conditions of our lower paid staff have been my constant concern since I took over. Since 1940, when I really got down to business on the Railways, I have made concessions and have increased wages, and given other benefits to the railworkers amounting annually to £1,273,000. The statement was frequently made during this debate that we are paying our labourers under 10s. a day. I want to indicate quite clearly what the position is in regard to our labourers. The lowest pay received by any married railworker on the South African Railways on the commencement of his service—after he has been there a year or two he gets considerably more—amounts to: Basic wages 8s. 6d.: 5 per cent. temporary extra responsibility allowance, 5d.; cost of living allowance, 3s.; or 11s. 11d. in all. So railworkers today at the commencement of their service, if married, are paid at the rate of 11s. 11d. a day and not under 10s. a day. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) flung some rather wild charges about as to what we were doing, charges which like so many others in this debate are much more fitted for the hustings than for this House. If he will give any instances of the kind he has indicated, I will be only too pleased to deal with the matter, and to deal with anyone guilty of the offences he alleges. I may say, however, in regard to the various points he raised, that first of all no lists of those who had or had not contributed to the war funds are kept in the Railway offices. In the second place, members of the staff are not used to see whether employees do or do not attend war functions, such as the Liberty Cavalcade. In the third place, members of the staff are not sent out to spy on other members of this staff to see whether they contribute to collections for Russia of for other purposes. These collections are street collections, and it is obvious that the staff cannot be used on them. No staff have been warned not to attend meetings of “kultuur” organisations, or to attend a “boere-orkes” evening. This allegation rather reminds me of the story of the schoolboy who described a crab as a red fish that looked sideways and walked backwards. His teacher explained that it was a very good description, except that a crab was not a fish, that it was not red, that it did not look sideways, and it did not walk backwards. In regard to the allegation made by the hon. member that we were painting the Railways black, he knows that is not justified. I have given an explanation of that position over and over again. We have had to engage a number of non-Europeans, because we cannot get European workers. The Railways must deliver the goods; they must handle the traffic; and if white labourers are not forthcoming we must take on natives. But I have given an undertaking that where white men were employed before the war they will be employed after the war if forthcoming. It is not fair, therefore, to say that we are painting the Railways black, but it is typical of the sort of allegation that hon. members opposite like to make against the Government. I now turn to the remarks made by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper). He spoke with great clarity, and as always with a large knowledge of Railway affairs. He is an old member of the Railway staff. I am not very sure whether if he were still on the Railways he would not come under the ban of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) for very rapid promotion. I am sorry to say that notwithstanding the temptation to remain on the Railways furnished by this rapid promotion, he has deserted us and become a member of Parliament. We could not persuade him to remain. I am quite sure that if there is one member in this House who can refute about half the charges brought by the other side, that member is the hon. member for Vredefort.

What about the member of the Railway Board who left?

I know of members of Parliament who became Railway Board members. Unfortunately the hon. member told me that I had also fallen from grace. So far as the statement by him is concerned, there again we come to the old question, if I do something for an Afrikaner I am a first-rate fellow, but if I do it for an English-speaking employee I am biassed. That sort of thing always makes it very difficult for a member on this side of the House, but. I would like to make it clear that no matter what threat may be offered me, and the hon. member did rather threaten me I am sorry to say, I will continue to carry out the policy I have been carrying out for the last five years, a policy of scrupulous fairness and justice to every section of the Railway workers. The hon. member referred to the question of the public relations officer which we have appointed. The activities of the Railway Administration, hon. members I am sure will appreciate, are so closely interwoven in the social and economic fabric of South Africa, that it has long been apparent to me that closer contact should be kept between the Administration and the public, more especially with representatives of public bodies. The question of the co-ordination of information for the public and the Press as affecting the Railways and Harbours Administration is a matter which has for a long time demanded attention. For the purpose of meeting this need we decided that a public relations officer should be appointed under the direct control of the General Manager of Railways. Such an appointment is not novel, because practically every American railway has such an officer and several English railways have such officers, as well as several English Government departments. Those in charge of railway organisations have recognised for some time that it is good business to ensure that the public are educated in railway questions. From the railway angle it is good business for the reason that as a public concern it is important that the public should understand not only what they are doing, but why they doing it, and that is a matter every citizen is interested in. I think it is a very good scheme to have an officer whose duty it will be to put these things across to the general public. The hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Hare) pressed me in regard to the need for the new railway station at Mowbray, and I will certainly go into the question and see whether anything can be done; but as far as Mowbray is concerned, I am rather afraid that is one of the stations that is in suspense pending a settlement of the foreshore scheme in Cape Town, which affects not only the Cape Town station, but the whole of the Railways as far back as Bellville. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) did me an injustice when he said that I talked freely about plans for the future of the Railways, but that the best thing I could do was to pass on the legacy I had received in the Railways. Where he did an injustice was that he did not pay a tribute to the efforts I am making to leave such a legacy. It is something which the staff now have and which I hope will long survive by passing away from the Railway sphere. He complained about a little room on the Cape Town station, and I am having that matter looked into. I may say that there is a great deal about Cape Town station that is unsatisfactory, and that is why I am anxious to get on with the new station. In regard to that particular matter that was brought on by the hon. member it was decided some little time back to take it in hand, and the actual work is now in progress. With regard to the question of the segregation of Europeans and non-Europeans travelling on suburban trains, I have already explained my policy. The Railways cannot be pioneers of social reform. It is the Railway practice, and I think it is a wise practice, to accept the social conditions ruling in any particular neighbourhood; and the remarks in regard to the mixing of Europeans and coloureds and natives, and the mixing of them in public places, is a subject that should be referred and entrusted to the public in those parts of the country affected, and not to me. I cannot be a social reformer. I cannot change the social conditions of Cape Town and district by waving a wand.

Has that been the practice as far as Somerset West?

You told us last time that it was only on the suburban line.

If there is any particular case I shall look into it. I shall now refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander). He asked me to make a statement to the House about the Cape Town foreshore scheme.

What about the building of new railway lines?

As the hon. member knows, there is no prospect of doing that now. But I have a number of requests from the speeches of hon. member noted down, and they will be put on a priority list. But as to when we shall reach that priority is a matter I am not prepared to go definitely into at present. I would like to say a word or two about the foreshore scheme; although I am not in a position to make a statement at the present time as the question of the final plans to be adopted for the foreshore is still a matter of negotiation between the Administration and the Cape Town City Council. It is quite true that up to date these negotiations have been rather one-sided. I have endeavoured to explain my views to the City Council by letter and by interview, but they always reply to me by rather violent attacks on me in the newspapers. I see there is another one this morning. That is the third attack they have made on me without having given me any warning that they were going to attack me. It makes negotiation a little difficult when I write fully and frankly explaining all my views about a particular proposition, and then I am attacked in the newspapers. I am called names; I am described as a vandal and other things. I do not want to make a point about that. I am quite prepared to accept this method of conducting negotiations, if that is desired. But the main difficulties between the Railway Administration and the City Council are twofold. One is in connection with the siting of the station, and the other is the amount of land that the City Council requires. There is no doubt about it that the Railways’ interest in the matter is to keep the station where it is, or as near to its present site as possible. I would like to say here that the beacon on the station was placed in the centre of the station and not at the entrace. It was not placed there for propaganda purposes. It was placed there to enable the Minister and various officials to see where it was proposed to have it. If you move the station from there, I am told by experts that it will mean a drop in revenue to the Railways of at least 40 per cent. in respect of local traffic. That is what my experts told me. That is to say that at least 40 per cent. of the people who now use the trains will not use them in peace time. Once there are motor buses and motor cars we will have a drop in revenue of 40 per cent. That represents a sum of £170,000 per annum. If we are to lose £170,000 per annum on the Muizenberg-Simonstown line, it would bring the Muizenberg-Simonstown line to the condition in which the Sea Point line was before we had to move it, and it will be a question whether we should not shut up the line altogether. If the Railways are to be compensated for their loss, it would involve the City Council in a capital expenditure of five million pounds to six million pounds. That is one of the factors which must be considered. Then too, under the City Council scheme they propose to take the whole of the foreshore with the exception of about five acres. As hon. members know, we have relied to a certain extent on that land to cover part of the cost of building the station, but they want to take it all except about five acres. It is possible for them to have it, but they must pay for it. I offered the Council a large slice of land at the bare cost of reclamation, but they are not satisfied with that. They want to take the lot bar five acres, and the five acres are not on the foreshore. They want to take all the land from the Railways right down to where the beacon shows.

What do they suggest paying?

It would cost them approximately ten million pounds if they were to pay for it.

How do you get at ten million pounds; is that the cost of reclamation?

No, I offered them a certain amount of land for their civic centre at the bare cost of reclamation, and if they are going to buy that land from me at the open market price, they will pay approximately ten million pounds. There will then be ten million pounds for land and six million pounds for paying compensation for the removal of the railway station, and it seems to me that it is not reasonable to expect the Railway Administration or the Government to make a present of that to the City Council. There are ten dozen places needing new stations, all of which require capital expenditure, and we certainly could not afford to throw away all these assets on this one centre. I would like to say, because I have been accused of being a vandal, that the plans that were drawn up of the Railway Scheme were not drawn up by railwaymen. We employed two world experts in Town Planning, Mr. Longstreth Thompson and Professor Thornton White. They were associated with a French world expert, who was retained by the City Council, and these three gentlemen drew up the plan more or less in agreement. There was very little difference between what Mr. Beaudoin wanted and what our people suggested. In good town planning it is not only a question of beauty. It is not only a question of a pleasing picture. It is a question of the convenience of the citizens who live in that town. The convenience of the citizens is just as important a factor.

It is a more important factor.

And to make people walk miles to the railway station, particularly when an equivalent of one million five hundred thousand people use that station every month, is not reasonable. These people are all to be inconvenienced and for what reason? Because they say that our railway station will not be pleasant to the city or because the railway line will divide the city in two. But that is not a very sound argument. You can bridge railway lines, and you can make beautiful boulevards. You could electrify the service so that you do not have the smoke nuisance.

Why not try an underground railway?

An underground railway would be alright if the population of Cape Town were ten times what it is. An underground railway is a very costly thing. It would not be costly if we could run a tube system. If we could run a tube, so that we do not need to have shunting lines and a large number of platforms, it might be possible to conceive a tubular system. I was very much attracted to that, but it broke down on a very essential point, and it is a point that is rather peculiar to Cape Town. If you take a suburban train round the tube and send it back, you reverse the train. As hon. members know, in Cape Town you have all the coloured passengers at one end and the European passengers at the other end.

I beg your pardon! Since when has that been so? Are you a stranger to these suburban railways?

I was advised that it would create endless confusion. It would mean having a large underground station which would be very costly indeed. But there is nothing to hinder the railway developing in that way eventually under the scheme of the Railway Administration. I was just explaining that these experts agreed upon this plan and I do not think it is fair to describe it as a piece of vandalism. The suggestion was also made to me the other day that I should reinstate the Technical Committee, and I notice that the point was strongly made this morning. I would like to point out to hon. members that the issue between the City Council and myself at the moment is an issue of policy and an issue of finance. What is the use of handing over a matter of policy or a question of finance to a committee of town planning experts? It is a sheer waste of time. Obviously at this stage it is a matter for discussion with the General Manager and myself, and once we have decided on the matter, if there are technical details that want straigtening out, I have undertaken to have this referred to a Joint Committee. Now I come to the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). The hon. member referred to the question of soldiers travelling in excess. But the hon. member will realise that I do not control the movements of soldiers. That is a matter for the Defence Department. If the hon. member has any remarks on that he should address them to the Department of Defence.

You might ask their cooperation in your difficulties.

I have asked them frequently.

Don’t you get it?

The hon. member also drew attention to the fact that a private coach had been supplied to Sir Noel Coward.

Since when is he Sir Noel Coward?

The hon. member seems to feel rather strongly about this.

Is he a “Sir”?

I should have thought that as one entertainer to another he would have been more tolerant.

You do not realise what professional jealousy is.

The hon. member has taken the words out of my mouth. I was going to say: Or was I right in detecting a note of professional jealousy? But what is important it that Mr. Noel Coward was described by the hon. member as as crooner. If Mr. Noel Coward is a crooner, then my hon. friend is a crooner too, because they both have exactly the same qualities.

We’ll forget that one.

You spoilt the original one.

Another Scotch joke.

You might have been mistaken; it was a cold I had.

At any rate, as far as this particular private coach is concerned, it was quite in order that Mr. Coward should be given this coach. At great expense to himself and great sacrifice of very valuable time, without any kind of reward at all, Mr. Noel Coward has come out to South Africa.…

At his own request.

.… to entertain our soldiers.

But at this own request.

At the request of the Prime Minister.

He requested the Prime Minister to invite him.

The fact remains that the Prime Minister invited Mr. Noel Coward.

He also invited Sir Evelyn Baring.

He has come to entertain our soldiers and sailors. He has given up a great deal of valuable time.

What is he doing?

He is taking no return for it whatsoever, and I think the least this Government can do is to see that he travels in comfort.

Why should he entertain the soldiers and sailors? Are there not enough bioscopes in South Africa?

The hon. member also raised the question of Sir Evelyn Baring. He is visiting this country on a holiday, and as such he is a private individual and can travel as he likes. If he came to this country on official business and he wanted a private coach, it would be supplied by the Rhodesian Railways. But it is not a matter for the South African Railways.

You have not told us what he has come to do here.

The hon. member for Humansdorp is an authority on what he is doing; let the hon. member ask him.

I can understand if he goes to the North but there is plenty of entertainment here for the troops.

The hon. member alleged that we sold 40 locomotives at a time when locomotives were very short. It is not correct that we sold 40; we have got rid of 24. I can assure the hon. member that no locomotive that was of the slightest use to the Railways was got rid of.

In other words, you sold them a “pup.”

Shame on you!

The hon. member may be an authority on pups, but he is no authority on locomotives. I would like to explain for the benefit of the hon. member that we are not discussing pups; we are discussing locomotives, and locomotives get to a stage that you cannot run them on a main line, but they are perfectly good to do shunting operations on limited sections of the line with limited loads. I think it is jolly good business to sell these locomotives to other people at a time when they can use them. This is the only time they require them. Now I come to the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt). The hon. member rather surprised me. I may be wrong but I had an idea that last year he took me severely to task for expropriating land in the Bayhead.

No, never.

In any event, I would like to say that I am expropriating land at the Bayhead which I believe will ultimately be useful to the South African Railways, but I do not want to expropriate other land. If the City Council or anyone else wants to develop the land properly, it is their business to take it over.

The Council has no right to take it over.

They can buy it. I have to buy it when I expropriate it. I do not get it for nothing. As a matter of fact, when I expropriate, I have to pay through the nose. The hon. member also referred to the secrets of Durban Bay. I have often seen references to the secrets of Durban Bay, but as far as I know there are no secrets. If there are any matters going on which are not allowed to be talked about for military reasons that is a matter for the military people. I make no secret of anything that is going on as far as I am concerned. It may be that the newspapers are not referring to certain aspects of the work at the request of the military people. But I do not suppose that the hon. member wants to go behind these military people in their attempt to keep war work secret. The hon. member can go around the Durban Bay and look at anything if he wishes do so. He asked what provision was made for ship building. I may say that I have already discussed this matter with people who are interested in ship building, and I have offered them land in Durban Bay if they wish to undertake the work of ship building in a responsible way. But beyond making them the offer of land and offering whatever assistance we could give, nothing further has developed. He also raised the question of the new railway station, and I admit at once that the progress on that station has not been what I would have liked to see. But under the new reconstruction department I hope the progress will be faster. I also note the request of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) for marshalling yards and for facilities for the men. The hon. member for Heilbron (Major P. W. A. Pieterse) raised several matters which have already been discussed. In regard to the metal trade facilities at Namaqua, there seems to have been some understanding. But I will communicate the details to the hon. member. I would like to correct the hon. member in his statement that if a farmer has fire breaks made he is charged £4 per mile, the actual charge is 10s. per mile.

I was told that at the meeting.

No, that is incorrect. The charge is 10s. per mile. I regret the necessity for having to have a permit to rail your motor cars at the present time, but I can assure the hon. member that that is a sheer necessity. At the moment we cannot afford trucks for the conveyance of cars, unless these cars are essential. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) raised only two point that I will deal with in these remarks. He was quite wrong when he said that people had to travel 30 or 40 miles to book their seats. No railway passenger need go beyond the nearest station master to book his accommodation, and it is quite unnecessary for the people to go in to Johannesburg to book accommodation. To do that would be unfair to Johannesburg because each place gets its quota. I would like to refer to one thing that the hon. member said. One of the most astonishing things that I have ever heard said in this House. He alleged that there was very grave dissatisfaction on the part of the Railway servants. He said that dissatisfied servants were dangerous and called attention to the fact that there have been many derailments, and he alleged that if there were greater satisfaction amongst railwaymen, there would be fewer derailments. On behalf of every Railway servant in this country I repudiate definitely and categorically that statement. I need not go further in the matter. I am quite certain that the hon. member will be called to answer that charge. The suggestion that a railwayman will allow his dissatisfaction at the conditions in the service to cause derailments is slander on the railwaymen.

What about Wanderers? You promised to say something about Wanderers.

I am only too pleased to do so. It was really a matter raised in another debate. So far as the Wanderers position is concerned, I have asked the representatives of the City Council of Johannesburg to meet me in Cape Town early in March and they are coming here to do it, and the reason for that is this, we are hoping to develop a scheme which will enable Wanderers to remain more or less where it is now and still give us all the Railway facilities that we need. That scheme is still in the process of development, and snags may still be found in connection with it. I want to discuss it with the City Council and once I find that they are satisfied and that it is a practical scheme, I will publish all the facts in connection with it. As I have said, there is a hope that we may still be able to save the Wanderers. Does that satisfy the hon. member? In regard to the hon. member for Durban (Point). (Dr. V. L. Shearer) I was very glad that he mentioned specially the sacrifice that the South African Railways made at the beginning of this war in handing over all their aeroplanes to the war machine. We were, I think, about the only Dominion that immediately when war was declared handed over all our machines to the Government, and all our pilots to further the war effort. The result, has been a considerable sacrifice in convenience, and even a considerable sacrifice in our war effort as a result of handing over these planes. In replying to the hon. member I can only express the hope that this good deed on the part of the Railways will stand us in good stead when there are a few planes to be spared for civil work, and that we shall be put on a high priority list by America and Great Britain in respect of such supplies; and I can assure hon. members that if I can get planes suitable for civil work, I will re-institute the civil service. Regarding the question of aerodromes, that is a matter which is still under discussion and consideration. It is quite clear that so far as the larger aerodromes are concerned, aerodromes of an international character, they are going to be too big a responsibility for any local authority, and I am certain that the Government will have to take a hand in these big air stations. But what that hand will be—how far we will take the responsibility—is still a matter which is under discussion. Then I come to the question of the new Department of Reconstruction. The hon. member urged the need for a Nautical Adviser at Headquarters. I would like to say that the Nautical Adviser who has been at Headquarters up to now was appointed as a war necessity. In the early stages of this war there were many nautical questions which arose almost hourly at Headquarters, and it meant that the officer concerned who was then in charge in Cape Town, had to be more or less continuously at Headquarters. But in peace time it is very doubtful whether there is enough work for a Nautical Adviser at Headquarters. I can assure the hon. member that if there is still work we will make an appointment. But I am not satisfied yet that the work is there. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) raises once more the question of the Piet Retief goods shelter. The real difficulty about that shelter is that we cannot rebuild that shelter unless we rebuild the shed, and it would be a large undertaking to rebuild the shed. I would like to oblige the hon. member in any way I can, but just at the moment it is difficult to undertake any work of that nature.

What about the platforms?

I was coming to that. In regard to the Ottosdal station, I find that that station is used by seven passengers per day, and I am very doubtful whether in the light of that we would be justified in giving it a platform in the meantime. There are many stations which are used to a far greater extent than that which have no platforms either. However, I am further looking into the matter. The hon. member referred to a secret memorandum issued by the present General Manager and he read out some extracts from it. I want to say quite definitely that no such document exists. I do not know where the hon. member got it.

If we had an enquiry we would prove it.

From the quotations given by the hon. member it appears that he has in mind some notes of an address by Mr. Watermeyer, not by the present General Manager, to the Senior Officers in June, 1940. At that time the country’s internal position was such that it necessitated and clearly justified the most extreme care being taken in regard to the loyalty of every railway servant, particularly those in key positions. It would appear that some relatively private notes of a meeting between Mr. Watermeyer and his staff is now in the possession of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, and this is what he calls a secret memorandum.

Why not appoint a Select Committee to find out where he got it from?

The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) stated with his customary eloquence and knowledge much that I have tried to say myself today.

What about Spoorbond?

The hon. member dealt with the reconstruction plans of the Railways, but as I indicated to the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock), that will come on to my Budget speech. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Solomon) raised the question of reinstituting the air service. I have already dealt with that. I have emphasised that it is necessary to have the planes before we can start the service. I have written to the hon. member in regard to the station at Fort Beaufort; then he wants me to be more generous in paying for the maintenance of the roads used by our road motor services. I may say that I pay to the Provinces the equivalent of taxes and licences on my motor vehicles, so that I pay exactly what the other users of the road pay. I do not know why I should pay more than they pay. I pay as nearly as possible the same as they pay, and I do not see that there is any ground for complaint. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) raised the question of internees and returned soldiers. Well, there he raised a very difficult question. It is a question which the Government will do its best to solve after the war, but might I take this opportunity of expressing the hope that after the war all good South Africans will settle down to work out the destiny of their country in a spirit of mutual understanding and loyalty, and will take the earliest opportunity of forgetting the difficulties which have ridden the country in respect of this war. I also thank the hon. member for his defence of Mr. Chittenden. That officer’s reputation is known far too well to be seriously affected by any criticism by hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Erasmus) raised the question of grain elevators. I am sorry there seems to have been some misunderstanding about the position as he understands it. I should like to explain for the benefit of those interested in grain elevators—and that includes the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren)—that the Railways do not propose to build more grain elevators. We already lose £117,000 a year on the running of the elevators we have. We run elevators purely in connection with the transport system, but the moment an elevator becomes a machine for the storage of grain, it becomes a matter for the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Agriculture is in discussion with the Railways at present in regard to the development of grain elevators in this country. The hon. member for East London (Mr. Christopher) raised the question of engine sheds and as he knows they are now being moved from their present situation to Cambridge. After that I hope he will have no further complaint about the East London Railway sheds. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. A. C. du Toit) raised several points, and I must thank him, in his absence, for the kind remarks he made about myself, which were very comforting after the rivers of abuse which have been pouring over my head for about two days. I shall look into the question of the Orange River Station and Bitterfontein, and the other matter raised by the hon. member. So far as Bitterfontein is concerned I make the same reply as I made to my hon. friend opposite. The Railway Board are visiting the North Western Districts on the 6th March and I have asked them to pay particular attention to the matters which have been raised here. Regarding the question of hours of duty of station foremen and hours of duty generally, I want to say that the report of the Hours of Duty Committee has just been received, and I hope that will bring about an amelioration of a great deal of the excessive hours worked on the Railways. It will cost a lot of money to put it into effect, but I am determined as far as I can to improve the hours worked on the Railways. There is no question that Railway servants in many cases have to work excessive hours, and you cannot go on indefinitely on that basis. Then in regard to the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Christopher) I associate myself with the remarks he made about the fine work done by the old hands on the Railways. He raised the question of old age pensions, but that is a matter for the Finance Department. The hon. member also referred to the East London railway station. Well, I can say this—the East London railway station will soon be a national monument. But if the hon. member has a little more patience it is possible he will get a new station. I have already replied to the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen). That is to say, I have replied to one of his points. I notice that he did not see why Johannesburg should have a new station. I can quite understand that. I would not have expected the hon. member to be well informed about the complicated problem of the Johannesburg station. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) once more raised the question of Spoorbond. I need not repeat the remarks I made last year about Spoorbond, but I will say this—let me remind the hon. member that I made every possible effort to persuade Spoorbond to fit its organisation into the new organisations required by the staff rules. They refused to do so. The staff associations today are completely bilingual, and completely non-political. And Spoorbond was not strictly that in the old days.

Then you must have changed your opinion about them.

Had Spoorbond been prepared to fit itself into the scheme of things I would have been very pleased. I shall deal with that matter at greater length in my Budget speech.

Did you not say that Spoorbond was very loyal to you?

Yes, they were very loyal to me, but that has nothing to do with the problem. They would not fit into the scheme of things. I tried to be loyal to them. The hon. member also spoke about the Cavalcade, and about complaints of pressure being brought to bear on the staff and on passengers—pressure to collect money and so on. Unfortunately when you work up enthusiasm for a thing like the Cavalcade an atmosphere is created which creates enthusiasm. I would be the last to discourage any enthusiasm for the cause for which the Cavalcade is promoted. I welcome the enthusiasm of so many railwaymen but I have asked the management not to allow the enthusiasm of any Railway servant, to get to the point of Railway servants becoming a nuisance. There is a limit beyond which they should not go. I have indicated that there must be no collections on trains, at booking offices and so on.

On the platforms.

Yes, I have said that on the concourse they must not have these collections. I agree that passengers must not be unduly interfered with. There must be no collections whatever in that way.

They even come to the windows of the coaches.

The hon. member also referred to the Central Pay Office in Cape Town. The same remarks apply there.

Does the Minister still say that articles are not made during working hours for sale at the Cavalcade?

The hon. member asked me a question on that and I answered it.

Are you still of the same opinion?

I have no reason to change my opinion; let the hon. member give me facts. If there is anything in it I shall look into the matter. It is not reasonable to put a question like that to the Minister of Railways. I do not run the Railways; I merely administer them politically.

Of course we know that Hoffe does that.

It is much better that Mr. Hoffe should run them than that hon. members should run them as they would like to. In regard to the question of station foremen becoming clerks I want to say that a rule was laid down about ten years ago, that station foremen could not become clerks, that the clerical posts were to be kept for our young recruits so that they would have a reasonable prospect of advancement. It was considered to be quite unfair for young men to find people switched in suddenly so that they were stopped in their promotion. Since I became Minister a few special cases have been allowed where people showed remarkable promise and ability. But they must be very special cases. The principle is the same as applied to the Public Service Commission. In regard to the question of the removal of the sheds at Mossel Bay, I can tell the hon. member that something will be done this year. Then, in regard to this question of trains not running to time to Somerset Strand, that will be looked into. It is unfortunately the Cape Town station which is the bottleneck, and nothing can be done at the moment to prevent delays. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) urged the extension of our shipping services, and I agree with the views he expressed. When the time comes I shall adjust the Railway shipping policy in line with the situation as I find it. If private enterprise will adequately meet our shipping needs, the needs of South Africa, I have no wish unnecessarily to interfere, but if private enterprise cannot do this, then the Railways will take a hand. I am satisfied that there are many young South African during this war who have joined the Sea Services and who will be anxious to find their life’s work on the sea, and I shall make it my business to see that opportunities for that are provided, either in our own ships or in ships of private companies. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) dealt with pilferages. I can assure him that I am always doing my best to keep this down. It is not always the Railway servants who pilfer; the hon. member rather implied that it was the Railway servants, but it is not so. The value of compensation payments, he pointed out, had risen very much in recent years. May I make this point—it is important. We have not raised rates, our rates remain the same, but the value of the goods which we carry has gone up very much, sometimes 100 per cent. It is quite obvious, therefore, that in relation to our revenue from rates our compensation payments in regard to these much more valuable goods must go up considerably, and in relation to the Railway turnover it does not mean that there is more pilferages. The fact of the matter is this; we are carrying more valuable goods at the same tariffs than before the war. Actually, the claims for compensation are just over 1 per cent. of our turnover, which is not a very high figure, if hon. members consider that we have such a widely spread Railway service, motor services, and so on, which are highly vulnerable from the point of view of pilferages. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) raised the case of Mr. Ackerman. I shall have that looked into—I do not know the facts. The hon. member also raised the question of segregation of natives at Johannesburg station. Under the present station arrangements it is hardly possible, but I hope that when we get a new station in Johannesburg better arrangements will be possible, and that we shall be able to meet the needs of both Europeans and non-Europeans in a way which is impossible today. I have a few notes here dealing with matters which were raised today. In regard to the hon. member for Pretoria District (Mr. Prinsloo) I agree with his remarks. I shall be very glad to know who it is who is discriminating against him, because of his political colour. I shall even protect members opposite if I find that they are discriminated against, because we do not want political bias.

But he accused you.

Well, then I don’t agree with him. In regard to the question of Kaalfontein, I shall have a discussion with the hon. member about that. Now the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) referred to a circular and he said that in that circular the men were advised not to show it to their public representatives. Here again I cannot discover what the hon. member is referring to. Our weekly notices which are sent out to all the staff are headed, “Private and Confidential,” “For the information of staff only.” That is not an unnecessary precaution, it is merely a wise precaution, and if there is anything in these instructions which any member of Parliament wants to ask about, the obvious man to see is the System Manager, who is responsible for these notices being issued. Members of the staff themselves cannot usually give the reason for any particular instruction, but there is no attempt on the part of the Railways to prevent the members of Parliament finding out anything. The hon. member also dealt with the question of the artisan staff conditions, but that is a question for discussion which the artisan staff themselves should raise with the Administration. The black-pit in Durban has nothing to do with the Railways. In regard to the Harbour Advisory Board, the allegation is made that they cannot open their mouths, and that those members who have been placed on the Harbour Advisory Board as representatives of the City Council are not allowed to let the people who have sent them there know anything about Harbour work. I have no objection to advisory board members giving the fullest information to the bodies which have elected them to the Board. That is one of the purposes for which they are there. Those boards are boards advisory to the Minister, and it is necessary that they should get the opinions of their bodies in order to advise the Minister, and there is no question of them having to keep secret any information—-except in the case of military secrets. Of course, there may have been military secrets which they have not been allowed to disclose, but I have no objection to their discussing other matters with the bodies whom they represent. In regard to the question of my working with the Corporation of Durban I may assure hon. members that I work very closely with the Durban Corporation and that I get a good deal of help from them, and if we have been remiss in replying to correspondence, I shall look into that. I want to say that I find the Durban Corporation one of the best corporations to work with so far as Railway Administration matters are concerned. There have been certain changes since the matter to which the hon. member referred was orginally dealt with. Now the question of Railway lines to Native settlements was also brought up by that hon. member and as it is a question which affects many people I would just like to say this, that as Minister of Railways I recognise that the Railways have a responsibility to provide transport to any area outside the town area where it may be considered wise to establish a native location or village. But the difficulties the Railways are in are this: Often it is the intention of the City Council to establish such a township and they give figures as to what that township will ultimately hold, but before they can make a beginning the railway must be there, and therefore the Railways has for many years to run at a loss. But if the Administration were to accept the position at the word of the City Council or a Town Council, they might have a complete dud, or a native township to which a railway line was constructed might never be filled up. I am looking into the question to see whether we can arrive at some formula which will permit of our laying down a railway line for native townships and at the same time preventing the possibilty of the Railways being exploited by putting down a line which may be of no value. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. H. F. Bekker) wants a railway line. I shall put that on the list.

And it never will be missed.

The hon. member also wants cooling trucks. Well, that will be attended to. Increased cooling facilities are being provided. On the question of double decker trucks I do not know whether the hon. member knows that the experiment made with double decker trucks was a complete failure. I shall be glad to let the hon. member have full particulars. The hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) thinks that the Potchefstroom-Fochville line should be extended to Vereeniging. Well, there is one way that can be done. That is to develop the country over which the line will have to run. This is a part of the country which at any rate is developing very rapidly. Then the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) finds that railway users are better off than motor bus users. It is true that the running of motors cars and buses costs more than the running of trains. Motor traffic is usually much less than train traffic, and consequently the costs must be higher. If it is a question of equalising them, it would be a matter of putting up the costs of branch lines. We have actually made a loss on a road motor service this year, so we are not making anything out of the tariffs which we charge. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) raised the case of Mr. A. H. Nobel. That case, of course, was taken as far as the Appeal Court, and in each instance this particular man lost his case. I agreed in order to meet this man as far as I felt I legitimately could, to treat it as if it were a test case, and I refunded to him our costs which amounted to £250, so I did give him something out of the wreckage, but it would be impossible for the Minister to dish out Railways funds to people who have had two court findings against them. If I were to do things like that I am sure the first people to sit on me would be the Railways and Harbours Select Committee. I cannot be generous with other people’s money, and I feel that as the law courts have gone into this case, and the judges have gone into the case, I cannot override them and say the judgments are wrong. What would the Controller and Auditor-General say?

He says you must alter the law.

I did, as hon. members know, pass an Act last year which gave a certain measure of compensation to anyone who suffered loss as the result of a fire along a railway line. That Act was in the nature of an experiment. It started out in a small way but I suggest that that is the line along which we should work—we should not give the Minister the right to override courts of law. Let us try and establish the law on a basis of fairness and justice, and I suggest that the principle embodied in the Act of last year is one of fairness and justice, and it is one in regard to which we must see how it works, and what it means before we go too far with it. I would recommend that farmers who are keen on this matter should give this Act of last year a fair trial and then we can amend it in any way we think fit.

What relief is available to these people now?

£250. This case happened before the Act of last year but if it had been subsequent to this Act of last year they would have got £250. I have given them more than that.

The judge says they lost £1,596.

That may be, but the judge did not find that the Railways were responsible for that loss

Will you agree to insist on a better spark arrestor?

The hon. member is asking me a very highly technical question which I do not feel fit to answer offhand. He also raised the question of a bribe—it must have been a bribe given to some booking officer in connection with the booking of a seat. I am only too glad to get details of anything of that sort because that is the kind of thing we must sit on very hard. The question of advertisements not indicating that returned soldiers will have preference has been looked into and instructions have now been issued, but I can assure the hon. member that any returned soldier who is an applicant does get preference to any appointment. In regard to the man who mixed up the labels, if he is guilty of that, he is guilty of an offence against the regulations, and he can be disciplined. Whether in this case that can be justified I don’t know. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) raised the question of foremen again. As I said, I have just got the report of the Hours of Duty Committee, and that will be studied and I hope it will bring about a big improvement. With regard to the position at Ashton, I hope to make a real start on that work this year. A substantial amount has been placed on the estimates for that purpose. In regard to the question of getting lorries for cartage at Ladismith, I shall also look into that. In regard to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) I have covered the point which he raised. I have urged that we should give the present Act a trial. In regard to the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Wessels) I agree with his views that in dealing with Railway servants we should not worry whether they are English- or Afrikaans-speaking. The question of housing is a matter which I am continually on the alert about. I am not satisfied with the progress we have been making there, and I have urged the Management to try and increase the effort and provide more houses for our staff. In this connection we have a great deal of leeway to make up and that will take a little time. Regarding Hospital patients, the complaint was that we send hospital patients on unnecessary journeys over the Railways. The hon. member will agree that it would be unwise for the Railways to interfere if a medical officer wants to send a case to a particular place. Sometimes special cases can be best treated in certain centres. I think that is a matter which should be left to the medical officer. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) wanted to know about the possibilities of Durban as a flying base. I do not know what he means by that.

A flying boat base.

It is a flying boat base now and I do not see any reason why it should not remain that. We have spent a good deal of money on the base there, but what is important at the moment is to decide what is to be the future of flying boats. As hon. members know there is a mixed school of thought who think that flying ships will replace flying boats on account of the lack of speed of flying boats but I am sure that as long as there are flying boats Durban will remain a base. The hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) brought up a case of alleged victimisation, and if he will give me some particulars I shall be glad to go into it. I have, of course, nothing to do with the Chief Control Officer. He does not come under me, and I cannot answer for what he did. Railwaymen are entitled to take unpaid leave in order to stand for Parliament, but railwaymen are not entitled to take an active part in party meetings, or in party affairs. I have no objection to any railwayman exercising ordinary political privileges. He is entirely entitled to do that, but we do not allow active participation in party meetings, and in furtherance of a party candidate by any railwayman. The difficulty that he has raised in connection with Capital Park will be looked into. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. Goldberg), the question of a ration allowance is really not one for me but for the Treasury to deal with. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) raised one or two points, I am looking into the question of the granting of passes for buses. With regard to the question he raised relating to the transport of manure, one of the difficulties, I believe, is that the Native Affairs Department does not feel able to agree to our taking manure from the native kraals, because we would be denuding the country; so that that is a matter rather to be dealt with by the Native Affairs Department than by me. As the hon. member has indicated, I hope shortly to pay a visit to Pietersburg. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) raised the question of the foreshore, to which I have already replied. With regard to the pupil engineers scheme for apprentices, that has been suspended for the duration of the war. The reason for that is that we do not wish to prejudice apprentices who have gone on service, and it will be reopened after the war. As hon. members know, I do not appoint railway medical officers. They are appointed by the Sick Fund themselves in conjunction with the General Manager of Railways. If the General Manager of Railways and the Sick Fund agree about the appointment, it does not come to me. It only comes to me in case of disagreement between the Sick Fund and the General Manager, and in my experience that has never happened. I think I have covered all the ground.

Question put: That all the words after “That,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—84:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Marwick, J. F.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard. C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J,

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Noes—34:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Louw, E. H.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens. J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and P. J. van Nierop.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Dr. Malan dropped.

The original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 24th January.