I wish to move the motion standing in my name—

I ask the indulgence of the House while I endeavour to deal with this matter which is of a rather technical nature and will require a degree of quotation. The salient features underlying the motion may be stated broadly as follows: Firstly, that the railways of the Union of South Africa constitute a great factor in securing the maximum possible industrial and economic development of our national resources. Secondly, that the main structure of the present railway tariffs was designed to meet the national railway requirements shortly after Union and has not been substantially altered for many years. Thirdly, that the incidence of railway tariffs must of necessity have a material bearing upon present planning for post-war reconstruction, particularly in relation to industries. Fourthly, that the character, volume and flow of goods traffic has changed materially in recent years. Fifthly, the necessity for replanning the tariffs over the transition period from war to peace so as to counteract from a revenue point of view any serious and sustained diminution of highly rated traffic upon which profitable railway operation at present so largely depends. To consider the question of railway tariffs, from a national point of view, one needs to look at that background and to see what lies in the history of South Africa in the matter of railway construction and development. Tariffs constitute the lifeblood of this great transportation industry. In the absence of navigable rivers, railways—and to a certain extent road motor services—comprise the artery and vehicle of transportation in this country, and are the pioneers of development and industry. They not only precede these national fundamentals but by their scientific and economic operation maintain and develop the agricultural and industrial life of the nation. To enable this object to be achieved the Government has at. present invested a sum of no less than £175,000,000 in the State Railways alone. The interest payment for last year was approximately £5,200,000, and there are recurring and standing charges. The total open mileage of the Railways is 13,292, and in respect of road motor services 17,159. These figures give an indication of the magnitude of this State enterprise. But there is also the human factor. There is the question of the staff employed, which must be borne in mind when we consider that of tariffs. The Europeans employed on the Railways at the present time number approximately 80,000, in addition to which there are approximately 57,000 non-Europeans, a total of 137,000, according to the General Manager’s Report (1943). We are informed by the Minister that the total number has increased to 139,000, and he has stated in this House that provision is to be made for the employment of 2,500 of our returning soldiers. So that we visualise a total of over 140,000 employees on the Railways and Harbours. On the basis of the European proportion of 80,000, taking a family on the low basis of three, you have one quarter of a million Europeans depending upon the Railway Administration, or slightly over 10 per cent. of our European population. The cost of living allowances for the year 1944-’45 will amount to something over £5,000,000. These figures show the importance of the subject which I have the privilege of introducing in this House. They indicate that the money at present invested, and the men employed, should be borne in mind when we consider what may be regarded as a very mundane and dry as dust question, namely Railway tariffs. At this stage I wish to thank the staff of the Administration and the Minister for the ready assistance afforded me in obtaining figures which I considered necessary for the introduction of this subject in the House. In the matter of tariffs the Railway Administration is governed by the South Africa Act, with particular reference to Clause 127—and not only that Act, but also Act 22 of 1916, in terms of which the authority for fixing the rates and fares is vested in the Railway Board. This latter provision should not, however, preclude investigation and recommendation by such a body as this resolution seeks to set up. Clause 127 of the South Africa Act provides that this State organisation “shall be administered on business principles, due regard being had to agricultural and industrial development within the Union, and promotion by means of cheap transport of the settlement of an agricultural and industrial population in the inlahd portions of all provinces of the Union …” It further provides that “notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the last preceeding section the Board may establish a Fund out of Railway and Harbour revenue to be used for maintaining, as far as may be, uniformity of rates, notwithstanding fluctuations in traffic.” I think it is well for me to emphasise that, with these and other conditions which I shall refer to, the House cannot regard the Railways as being run entirely on business lines: that is to say, in the same way as one would run an ordinary commercial business —and I presume the Minister has discovered that. In the consideration of Railway rating policy there must be borne in mind the factors that governed the conveyance of traffic in the old Cape Colony and in Natal particularly with reference to the preferential rates which were in operation, and also the competitive considerations governing the rates from the various ports of the Union on the highly lucrative traffic to the Witwatersrand, in regard to which latter you have the position that the rates from Durban to the Witwatersrand on high class traffic also apply from East London, although the distance is 180 or more miles further. Therefore, any consideration of Railway tariffs or any criticism of the Railway Administration in regard thereto must in all fairness take into account the protective and preferential factors contained in the Act of Union, and also in the pre-Union practice of the coastal states which form the Union of South Africa. Apart from these considerations the basic principle of Railway rating is “what the traffic will bear.” In the main, the rates are on a tapering basis, that is to say, the further the goods are conveyed, the lower the rate per ton per mile. I wish to be fair to the Administration. This motion is not an attack on the Railway Administration. Its object is constructive, and to secure if possible something which will add to the efficiency and effectiveness of our great transportation industry and be conducive to the national welfare. In that connection I would remind the House that criticism is sometimes levelled against our Railway rating system in regard to its effect on the cost of living. The cost of foodstuffs in South Africa has risen considerably, whereas the Railway rates have not been disturbed except where a reduction has been made. That, I think, the House will confirm from their own experience. For instance, however material has been the increase in the price of meat, there has been no increase in the rate for the conveyance of cattle on the hoof, and the same may be said in regard to other criticisms in this connection. The effect of Railway rates upon primary foodstuffs is not appreciable, and is sometimes eliminated altogether by a slight fluctuation in the market price of the commodity. Sometime ago we were concerned with the question of the supply of meat to the Witwatersrand. Some difficulty occurred and the Government arranged for the transport of a particularly large consignment of cattle from South-West Africa to Johannesburg; and it is interesting to note the railage charge per lb. of dressed meat in respect of that consignment. Taking Kalkveld as the point of despatch and the distance as 1,550 miles, the cost per lb. of meat was approximately ¾d. If one takes a normal source of supply to the Witwatersrand market, say Louis Trichardt, a distance of 314 miles, the rate for 1 lb. of dressed meat —the cattle having been conveyed on the hoof—works out at .3d. per lb. Just one other example: The favourite subject of potatoes. The rate on potatoes, say from Bethal to Johannesburg, 113 miles, is id. on 10 lb. I mention those facts because I shall refer later on to the gesture made by the Minister of Railways when he surrendered an amount, I think, of approximately £500,000 in order to reduce the cost of living. I would rather go on, if the House would bear with me, to describe the main categories of Railway tariffs in South Africa. You have ordinary tariffs, export tariffs, special rates for South African manufactures, distribution rates, sea competitive Railway rates, absolute preferen tial rates for South African products and manufactures, and then the vexed questions of rebates on traffic for civil Government departments and special rebates to the agricultural community in respect of their requirements and their products. Certain of these categories call for review, either in the form of a reduction or increase, or abolition altogether. Now, on the question of export tariffs; that category is essential to the life of industry in South Africa. Special rates for South African manufacturers should come under review. The sea competitive Railway rates applying as between port and port, and in many cases regarded as entirely uneconomic, should also be reviewed. The question of preferential rates on South African manufactures and products in regard to which the tariff classification is fixed lower than the ordinary classification, so that the further a consignment of South African goods is carried, the greater the increase in preference—a system which, is entirely uneconomic, and I shall deal with it later. The question of rebates is one which has caused members of this House some perturbation and should be reviewed. I should like to point out, in view of the fact that the Railway Administration will come under criticism in relation to the development of the industries of South Africa, that the number of commodities which are given export rates amount to 148. In regard to South African manufactured articles which get the benefit of the nearest port rate, for example articles manufactured in Cape Town and sent to the Rand would receive the benefit of the Lourenco Marques rate—the number is 122. The commodities which enjoy reduced rates when used as raw materials for manufacturing purposes, number 132. Industries have been created in South Africa by cheap railway rates, but this has only been made possible by the revenue received from highly rated goods. It should not be overlooked that some of our industries in South Africa are so located that any disturbance of the tariff, however slight, even 6d. per ton, might prejudice not only the industry at that place but the employees and the surrounding communities. I should now like to refer to the question of manganese ore. The industry opened up in the Postmasburg area and developments have taken place due to the fact that the Administration has observed the principles of clause .127 of the South Africa Act. The rate for 764 miles, i.e. from the Postmasburg area to Durban, is 13s. per ton, which works out at one-fifth of a penny per ton per mile, in addition to which trucks have to be hauled empty for a great portion of the journey from Durban to Postmasburg. Take the matter of iron ore from Thabazimbi to Pretoria for our great steel industry, a distance of 157 miles, the rate is 63d. per ton on 4d. per ton per mile. The main structure of our ordinary tariffs was designed to ensure that the national needs shortly after Union should be met, and that there should be no disturbance of the pre-Union relationship between the ports, in the matter of competition for traffic to the Witwatersrand. Those who are acquainted with the railway history of South Africa will remember the competition which occurred in regard to imported traffic for the Witwatersrand. In addition to that the Administration had to face a policy which provided preferential rates that were unscientific and could not be justified, unless one were to regard the railways in South Africa as a taxing proposition.

Surely that is what they are.

Some time ago a very important committee dealt with this matter and in their report—the Departmental Railway Tariffs Enquiry Committee of 1930—they put this heading to paragraph 165: “Preferential Railway rates are calculated to defeat the policy set forth in the Act of Union with regard to the development of industry inland”, and as a result of their recommendation a good many of these preferential rates were excised and the number at present in operation is 81. I have already endeavoured to illustrate the reason for this objection. If for example sugar can compete at Durban with imported sugar, why should a railway rate be established which provides for a protection which increases the further the sugar is conveyed. This to my mind is foreign to the principles of the Act of Union but it is a legacy which was taken into the railway rates structure because of the practice that prevailed prior to Union. Now, the resolution does not specifically ask for increases or decreases, but for a review by a body capable of undertaking such a job. I hope this debate will not become the happy hunting ground for special interests or particular towns or villages. I would rather see a council created to which such representations could be made, where it would be possible for consideration to be given on broad national lines. I hold the view that no national planned economy for South Africa could omit this question of Railway rates, and I consider its omission from a co-ordinative scheme would be inimical to its successful functioning. Representations have been made for such an investigation or review as I have indicated in my motion. In the third interim report of the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission on page 86 “the Commission recommends that the Railway tariffs be revised so as to accord with the policy of the optimum utilisation of the natural resources of the country.” I wish also to quote from the report of the Economic and Social Planning Council—their first report— Clause 51. This is what the Council says—

And in a further report, No. 2, they comment on the proposals from, the Social Security Committee—Clause 40, the latter part—which reads—

And then there is a further important factor in the consideration of this matter, raised in the “Salstaff Bulletin,” the organ of an association of over 12,000 of the Railway and Harbours salaried staff. In connection with the requests that have been made for increased cost of living allowances, shorter hours, more adequate pay for overtime, and Sunday time, increases in salaries and wages, and the introduction of the principles of the Factories Act, the Bulletin (February 1944) states—

And then you have in South Africa that most beneficial development namely the construction of our national high roads. These roads when utilised to the best advantage will in some measure be competitors to our railway transportation system. It is true that under the Motor Transportation Act protection is given, but that protection will require to be wisely administered. But over and above that consideration you will have the position that those who are well-to-do will use those very fine national roads, and the Railways will have to depend, particularly in relation to passenger traffic, on those who cannot afford to proceed to their destinations by car. I have referred to the necessity for safeguarding the revenue of the Railway Administration in case there should be a serious and sustained diminution of our highly rated traffic, the traffic that increases during times of prosperity and which naturally falls away during times when money is not so plentiful—one may call it luxury traffic—and as low rated traffic on the South Africa Railways depends upon the remunerative high rated traffic, there is a case for a close review of the whole of the tariff system, so that we may be prepared in good time, should such an event materialise. May I illustrate by indicating to this House that the tonnage of highrated traffic in 1942-’43 was 14.73 per cent. of the total tonnage conveyed and the proportion of the total revenue derived therefrom was 58.16 per cent. For the same period, in respect of low-rated traffic, the tonnage was 85.27 per cent. of the total, whereas the revenue produced was only 41.84 per cent. of the total revenue. So it will be clearly seen that if you have a lowering of the tonnage of highly-rated traffic there must either be an increase in. the rate for low grade traffic, a danger to the development of industry, or an increase will have to be made in the high-rated traffic itself. Surely we should not, in these days of planning for post-war reconstruction, overlook that important consideration. The railwaymen are a large body of men who are sustained in their livelihood by this enormous State business. Reference has been made to the Rates Equalisation Fund. The Minister dealt with that very effectively in his Budget speech. Through his wise policy we have utilised some of our enormous surpluses, surpluses which have been criticised by the country, in order to build up one of the most essential funds in our national economy, and it has been raised to £10,000,000. His predecessor never visualised a fund of £10,000,000, but the present Minister of Railways, as a businessman, has indicated that if this Government were to treat the South African Railways on the basis adopted by the Rhodesian Railways in regard to their Rates Equalisation Fund—I think it is about. £3,000,000—then our Rates Equalisation Fund should not be £10,000,000, but somewhere in the neighbourhood of £20,000,000. This is an important factor. Ministers have from time to time said in this House, if I remember correctly, that they have determined that this fund shall be used directly or indirectly to stabilise wages. Apart from the legal interpretation of its object, money has been put into this fund for that express purpose according to statements made by Ministers. In regard to the £10,000,000 that we have accumulated, in 1930-’33, during the depression period, the Government had to dismiss men, cut wages, reduce overtime, and went even to the length of taking 3d. a day from the pay of some of our native labourers, which was miserably small then, and when they had done all that it involved an amount of £7,000,000. That £7,000,000 was in respect of a staff which was considerably smaller than that of today. I have looked at the figures for 1933, ten years ago, and I find that the total staff on the Railways then was in the neighbourhood of 80,000; today it is something like 140,000. Those figures relate to the whole of the staff. Moreover the tonnage of railway traffic was much smaller. If by increases in rates, by retrenchment and by cutting wages during 1930-’33 an amount of £7,000,000 was involved, what would be the corresponding amount today if we were faced with similar circumstances? How long would our £10,000,000 last? Therefore I share the Minister’s view that we are not safe with this fund at £10,000,000, and that is also a reason why this question of railway tariffs, which constitute the life blood of our Railways, should be brought under review now. The Minister has indicated in his Budget speech that the Railways may have to face a deficit—the first for many years in the Railway Budget— of something in the neighbourhod Of £400,000. After years of surpluses, and at a time when money is fairly plentiful, the Minister makes that statement in this House. Owing to increased expenditure the Minister anticipates that defecit. Surely, Sir, I need not emphasise the point. We have reached the stage when all requests for reductions in tariffs, if they are not economical to the Railways, have to be looked at. very carefully indeed, and when all proposals calculated to result in increased traffic of whatever kind have to be welcomed. There is one other phase in this question of the review of Railway tariffs. I have said that we must not overlook the human factor in relation to Railway staffs, and I want to deal just very briefly with that, particularly as regards the workers of South Africa generally. For years we have asked that part of our national scheme should be a holiday once a year for every worker, whether he works on a farm or in a factory, and that our State Railway system should provide a means whereby that holiday might be interesting, recuperative and beneficial in every respect. The Minister has abolished excursion fares. There was every reason for that; but I want to suggest to him that if this Advisory Council I am proposing were set up, some means could be devised whereby we should not have these periodical excursion arrangements, which enable a section of the community to have three or four holidays a year, but provide for a system whereby the whole of the public of South Africa should have an opportunity, whatever race or colour they may be, of enjoying an annual holiday trip by rail. I say that this should be a part of a national scheme, and that industrialists and trade unions should be consulted, and that we should consider a system of an all the year round fare for distances in respect of which it constitutes a material proportion of the total holiday costs. In other words a cheap fare is not essential for comparatively short distances, say 80 miles. But when one is travelling, for example, from the high level of the Witwatersrand to the coast, the railway fare does, at any rate in the case of a family, constitute a very material proportion of the total expense involved in the holiday. I think that such a council as I have suggested, could give this matter consideration, and being representative of all groups of the people, its decision would doubtless be received with greater confidence, than a simple “no” by the Minister of Railways in this House, or by the Administration itself. I have referred to the fact that the Minister has mentioned in his speech that he visualises further expenditure in connection with the representations that have been made to him from the various staff organisations, and I think he will agree that these representations have not been at all drastic in their form. We must also not overlook the fact that the wage and other conditions of our non-European unskilled labourers are not yet at the level which I am sure the Minister would like them to attain, and in order to move further in that direction the Railways will have to ensure that there is sufficient money in the till. You cannot get sufficient money in the till except through your railway tariff system. When the Minister is budgeting, he comes to the House and says: “This is my expenditure”; I want to suggest if there are improvements that require to be made, or are likely to be made, then provision should be made in that very Budget that he introduces. So, if we say we are going to have a deficit, it should be a deficit based on probable expenditure such as is visualised by the Minister. I hope that provision will be made, and that this House will not be satisfied until the wages and the conditions of the unskilled labourers on our State railways have been improved, not only to our satisfaction but to the satisfaction of the Minister himself. It is also necessary that we should make provision that the Railways should, as far as possible, be protected from any taxation measures introduced by the Government. In this House I personally protested against what took place last year when railway passengers were taxed 15 per cent.; a precedent was then established which I consider was most dangerous, and foreign to the spirit of the South Africa Act. That aspect is fully dealt with in the General Manager’s Report. The position today is that the Administration expects to have a deficit while we are giving substantial rebates, not only in respect of Defence Force traffic—with which I do not quarrel at the moment—but in respect of other requirements of the country.

How can you quarrel with the one and not with the other?

In regard to the Defence Department rebate, the General Manager has alluded to it in his Bulletin No. 295, where he states—

And you are not worried about that?

My reply is this: If this Advisory Council is set up it will deal with any point that is raised in this House. There have been previous enquiries into Railway tariffs. The Minister will doubtless refer to these. There was the Departmental Railway Committee of 1930, whose general recommendations have not all been given effect to, because in certain respects they affect policy. There was the Granet Commission of 1934, and the Rural Industries Commission of 1937, whose report is one which I would recommend every member of this House to read. Representations are made in this House for special rates for industries in rural areas, and the Government, years ago, instituted that particular Commission which took two or three years travelling round the country. Its report is available to all members, and it points out the difficulties in establishing industries in the villages of South Africa. I suggest that as we are faced with the imminence of new economic conditions in South Africa, in which the Railways will play a vital part, that this motion which I. have the privilege to submit to the House is justified. The proposal urges that the principle of consultation “on the doorstep” should be altered to that of “the round table,” in order to ensure the fullest confidence as well as the best results. In other words, if an industry comes to the Administration it will say, “Put your case in writing.” A communication is then sent to the Administration, and in due course a reply is recevied. I consider that the time has arrived when some form of advisory council should be established so that where the industry is of such importance as to justify special consideration, its case should be made a subject of a round table discussion by such a representative body. That course would I think satisfy industry, agriculture and commerce in South Africa. I make it a sine qua non that Railway experts should be largely represented on that committee, because the matter is technical, and requires to be dealt with in the light of possible repercussions, or shall I say, from the angle of the relationship of that particular case to the. whole of the rates structure of the South African Railways. I suggest that the Minister should appoint a council of that kind, to be advisory to the Railway Board. It should operate particularly during the transition period to normal peace conditions, and it should keep in close touch with proposals for industrial and other development, and have the open door to the Railway Board. This would enable the Railway Administration to be prepared in time for any sudden developments in our economic system. Many of these changes may be anticipated with a degree of accuracy, and could be dealt with by such a council. I do not ask for a rates tribunal such as you have in Rhodesia, where decisions of the Railway headquarter staff can be overruled; not at all. The principle and practice in the Union of South Africa have been laid down in the Acts I have mentioned. But I do think a case can be made out for an advisory board, at least in respect of the very important transition period from war to peace. I submit the proposal in the hope that the Minister will adopt it in principle, and dispel any idea, however erroneous, that this great State industry is not in full, close and active consultation and co-operation with national economic development: and also because it is based upon the great part already played and to be played by the Railways in the promotion of the national welfare. I commend it to the consideration of the House, and I trust that the Government will accept the motion in the spirit in which it is framed, and, if at all possible, grant the request contained therein.

I wish to second this proposition, which asks for a review, with a specific object in view, and the re-adjusting or modifying or revising of the rating system on our railways. Now, Sir, not many years ago if one had asked for this it would have been a tall order. It would have almost caused a sensation in railway circles, but I do not think it is so today. In those days the railway rating system, and I presume to a certain measure today, was looked upon as something sacred, as a sacred structure which had taken many years to build; and it was stated that if you drew out a brick here and a brick there at different times from this structure, it would topple. Eventually I think these days have passed, because we are facing a set of new factors today. The whole world is taking a new shape. South Africa is taking a new shape; we are facing a new world economy. Our exports, in peace time, are far greater than they were years ago, and on account of our becoming an industrial country, our imports are less; and on that account alone a revision of these things is necessary. There is no doubt that the whole world is facing a new economy, and I should imagine that the Minister should direct his attention to this very seriously. Sir, I have grounds for thinking that the railway rating system has been responsible for quite a number of things in this country. I want to say it has been a good system up to a point, it suited our old economy, but now it requires to be amended. Particularly the distribution rate, I think, has been the cause of congestion in four big areas in this country. The biggest of those is the Rand area. In those four areas it has been the cause of high land values, and high rentals. I would go as far as to say that indirectly it has been the cause of the slums of Johannesburg. It has been the cause of lop-sidedness in this country. We know of the lop-sidedness in Australia, where 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the people have drifted into the towns, and we have seen the result. We are drifting in a similar manner. It is not a good thing; it is not sound. We are becoming lop-sided because 80 per cent. of our population has drifted into these four areas, and the other 20 per cent. has been left to cover the rest of the country. There are towns in this country today that have not made progress, not one iota of progress in the last 50 years; in fact some have retrogressed. I am not going to say that every town should progress; some of them have been established for specific reasons, but there are towns that should have made progress and that have not progressed one iota in 50 years. The countryside has become denuded of its population. It has drifted to the bigger cities. A change must come about, and I think the railways can help. The railways today help the railwayman; he is well looked after. In many respects the railway users are well looked after. And I say now that the railways must help the country as a whole, and they can do it. I base my opinion on this, that if we look at the railway figures for the last six or seven years, we must come to that conclusion. Let me quote a few figures. During the last six years deficiencies in railway pensions funds were met up to £3,750,000, while the Rates Equalisation Fund in the course of seven years, received from £6,000,000 to £7,000,000. In the last six years special contributions poured into the Rates Equalisation Fund, the Renewals Fund, the Betterment Fund and the Pensions Fund, those funds being the four chief railway funds, to an amount of £25,000,000. These contributions are all made out of railway profits. I have nothing to say about that; I agree with it. But the fact is that some £25,000,000 from railway profits have poured into these four funds in the last six years. Therefore I say the railways are in a position to help this country, and to help us now at this crucial moment. I can quote other figures. Take rate rebates to the railwaymen; that represents a sum of £500,000; responsibility allowances absorb £750,000, and recurring benefits to the staff some £2,000,000 per annum; while the amount used to make up the difference between the military pay and the civil pay of Railway employees runs into £900,000 per annum.

Those figures all go to show that the Railway Administration today is as sound as a bell, and therefore I say it is time that it came to the assistance—as I presume it will —of the country. I do not want to go into the question of these various rates; that is a job for experts. But I do want to say that the distribution rate has caused more trouble than any other rate. The allocation of industry in this country has been influenced by the distribution rate. What we want today is a regional rating policy. which will bring back the population from those four congested areas as far as it is economically possible. Our markets and our factories and our workshops, including our Railway workshops—all have been concentrated and congested in those four areas. I do not think that is a good policy. Take, for instance, the railway line from Cape Town to Mafeking. On that whole stretch, which is almost 1,000 miles in length, there is no such thing as a railway repair shop worthy of the name. That should not be. We should have big railway repair or assembly shops along that section of the railway. We should certainly not have a length of railway like that, on which there are no facilities at all. Today all these activities are concentrated in four big areas. The four big areas are Durban, Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. Now, in regard to the new economy—we shall all have to adopt it, because the world is moving in that direction. For instance, there is the policy of decentralisation. I think the Minister is busy on a policy of decentralisation. I do not know how far he is going, but up to a degree I think he agrees, and his Administration agrees with decentralisation. Whether he will revise Railway rates I do not know. Of course, they are always being revised in a small way, but that is not enough. Another matter in respect of which the Government has been converted is that of bringing the factory to the raw material. If we go to work on these three principles our efforts will be crowned with success, and we should be able to rehabilitate the backward areas of the country, and that will be a big step forward. Now, I want to be clear on this. I do not recommend that industries should simply be taken to the platteland where they will not thrive. We must be careful and see that they are not only economically possible where we put them, but there are other conditions to be considered—social and cultural conditions. Take the question of wool. I would not think for instance of establishing a woollen factory in the interior. It can be done, but it will not flourish. The place for such a factory is at the seaboard, where you have soft water, and where the manufacturer can go into the market and get what he requires at short notice any day of the year.

You get soft water away from, the coast too.

The hon. member thinks he knows everything about everything, but he does not know anything about this matter. As the Minister reminds me he knows about wine, but he does not know anything about water. In the woollen industry you require soft water and not water which flows over limestone or gypsum beds. A man who starts a woollen factory must be able to go in to the market, where he can buy any type or class of wool he needs, at short notice, and buy what he wants, and as much as he wants, whereas if you have a woollen industry in the interior you have to pile up your wool of one type where it will have to lie and depreciate, and be subject to market fluctuations and interest charges. I give that as an instance of an industry whose home is on the seaboard and not in the interior. But there are other industries which can be established in the interior of the country and I want to mention one or two. For instance, in the interior we possess lime, gpysum and salt, and various other minerals; base metals and minerals right on our Railway system. I know of such an area where these minerals are on the railway going to the North, the Belgium Congo, to the South, and to Johannesburg. Everything that is required is there. You have water at the lowest possible rate— as much as you want—from the Vaal-Hartz Irrigation Scheme. All these things are there. And if it can be shown that an industry can be established there, then steps should be taken to establish such an industry. But today we cannot make headway. Let me give one instance. In this place I am speaking of there are vast deposits of kaolin from which French chalk is made for the mines. The chalk is moulded into pencils. If you make your pencils at this particular spot and send a consignment to Johannesburg the railage is £2 10s. per ton, but if you send the raw material in the shape of powder, that is in its raw state, the rate is only 10s. per ton. Now, that is where I feel that the distribution rate is hitting new industry heavily and that is where I think the Minister should revise that particular rate. I can point to places where big basic industries can be established in the interior of this country—basic industries which will defy competition. These propositions have been worked out already. We can produce excellent results from these basic industries if the Minister will help us; we can produce all the by-products of salt, such as soda, caustic soda, bicarbonate of soda, and all the alkalis. We can make all these things and produce them at pounds per ton cheaper than anywhere else in the country, and even if they are imported we can beat competition from outside—now or after the war. These industries are being investigated with a view to post-war indsutrial development. The Railways have served a great purpose. They have helped in the export of coal, maize, and base metals, and now we are asking the Railway Administration to come to the assistance of these neglected areas, and come to the aid of the base metal and mineral industries—industries which will stand the test of time when gold will almost have been forgotten. I want to say something about the £30,000,000—the glamorous £30,000,000 which the Minister spoke about the other day. The first instalment for Postwar Reconstruction. I repeat the Government’s policy is decentralisation up to a point and that the factory should be brought to the raw material, and that we must spread our population back on to the countryside as far as it is economically possible. And yet of this £30,000,000, which is the first instalment, to the interior, which comprises portions of Natal, the Free State and the Cape, not a brass farthing was allocated. We are perturbed and disappointed, and if this is postwar reconstruction then may heaven preserve us.

What has that to do with Railway rating?

I say there are prospects for industries in the interior of the country which, if they receive proper attention and assistance through Railway rates, can be successfully established. The possibilities are there, if the Railway Administration will help. But if this is post-war reconstruction for the interior, then may heaven preserve us. This is not post-war reconstruction; to us it means post-war destruction. I am not going to ask the Administration to do things which are impossible, but these things are possible and the country can be developed with assistance. We have a huge interior, which in many respects has not been touched as yet. Well, we have heard of the first instalment of £30,000,000 but not a brass farthing has come our way. Thirty years or so ago the interior was not looked upon with favour. Take the Vryburg area. In those days it was sparsely populated but today it is undoubtedly one of the best cattle ranching districts in the country. It has not been developed; this district and others deserve attention. Moreover, all the rivers worth talking about converge in the interior. Let me say this to the Government’s credit that it has given us a vast irrigation scheme which has given us a background, and we cannot thank them enough for that, but· the very fact of that development has given rise to further development and further enterprise, and it is this further development which I am pointing to today. If it were not for this irrigation scheme we would not be able to think of these new developments. There is nothing wrong with the Minister’s judgment, but I think he should mix some imagination and vision with his judgment. We have these vast possibilities. Let us make use of them now. Let me say a word about Railway development. We have a big irrigation scheme in the Free State also on the Riet River. That scheme requires a short piece of railway, about 28 miles, but we simply cannot get it. There is no vision. We should not think twice about it in these days. Over a million pounds have been sunk in that scheme. That railway should come into the post-war reconstruction scheme. We have been spending money at the rate of £100,000,000 and more on the war per annum. I don’t say we must continue to spend on that scale but. do not let us be niggardly over a few millions. We want railways to develop the interior; we want a railway to Prieska, and to Karos-Buchuberg, another big irrigation scheme, which is worth millions, but even there is no railway. And beyond Karos-Buchuberg is the Aughrabies Falls where the Orange and Vaal Rivers fall some 300 feet—the only falls in the country. We do not know the possibilities of that country as yet. I want the Minister to have vision.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting.

When the House rose I was just making my last point. I was saying that what we require when considering our post-war reconstruction programme is not only judgment but imagination and vision. There are many great things to be done. We want development in the interior, not only in the interior of the Cape where I come from, but in the interior of the Free State and the interior of Natal, in those parts of the country which have been neglected and where development is economically possible. The country is on tip-toes waiting for post-war reconstruction; it is a subject which is spoken about now-a-days as much as social security. The two go hand in hand. I have every faith in the Government; it is the only Government which can do anything for the country, and I hope that this programme will be carried out, and will be carried out in a degree that will satisfy the people of this country.

The question of Railway tariffs is one of the most difficult on the Railways, and does not only apply to South Africa, but to other countries. There are certain interests which pull strings to get reductions in Railway rates, and representations are continually made to the Railway Administration for the reduction of certain rates. In some countries it is the practice to have a Railway Tariff Court where the interested parties can present their case and ask the Court to fix the rates. In South Africa, too, representations have been made to the Railway Administration to establish such a court for the determination of rates, and several commissions have actually gone into that question. It has however, been found, that where the Railways are State owned Railways, there is no such court. It is only where the Railways are private enterprises that there is such a court, and even there the system does not answer well on account of the fact that often a lot of money is wasted on applications regarding the fixing of rates. South Africa has taken up the attitude that as our Railways are Government Railways it is unnecessary to establish such a court. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) has now proposed the establishment of a Standing Advisory Committee to deal with all representations and to advise the Minister or the Administration in regard to the fixing of rates. It may in one respect help the Minister to get advice from such a Board or Committee, but if we look at what has happened in the past we find there was a Departmental Committee, and also the Granet Commission, both of which went into the whole subject. The various interests made representations to these bodies, both to the Committee—the Inter-departmental Committee, and to the Granet Commission, but the requests made by the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Industries, the Agricultural Unions, and other interests, could not be complied with. The question is whether having such an advisory committee will assist the Minister to fix tariffs. We are not opposed to such a step, however, we are in favour of it, but I am going to move an amendment to make the proposal a little wider. What I want to emphasise, though, is that the Railways in South Africa occupy a special place in the country’s development. Before Union was established in 1910 the principal industries existed in the coastal areas, in Natal, in Port Elizabeth and in Cape Town. Practically speaking there were no industries on the Witwatersrand and in the interior of the country generally. In 1914, after the South Africa Act was put into force, the tariffs in respect of section 127 were amended in such a way that the establishment of industries in the interior was encouraged and the result was that a large number of industries sprang up in the interior. In 1914 the Chamber of Industries was first established in Johannesburg; before that the industries were confined to the coastal areas. But the Railways occupy a particular place in the economic development of South Africa and it is for that reason that the fathers of the Act of Union at the National Convention paid special attention to the Railways from this particular point of view. The Railways were to be a business concern, but at the same time they were not to be run at a profit. The Railways do not pay any taxes to the State; they pay no customs tariffs to the State; they pay no Municipal taxes in the towns and in the villages. All these privileges are enjoyed by the Railways. But at the same time certain obligations are imposed on the Railways with a view to the development of the country, and the Railways have been instructed particularly to see to it that the agricultural industry is given a low tariff, and that the industries of the interior are also granted low rates for their Railway transport; the Railways are instructed to provide cheap transport to encourage the establishment of an agricultural and industrial population in the inland parts of the Union. Those are the duties imposed on the Railways. While certain privileges are conferred on the Railways, certain obligations are specially imposed upon them under the Act of Union. If we study the representations which in the past have been addressed to the Railway Administration we find that special emphasis has been placed on these provisions in the Act of Union, that is to say there is to be a low tariff rate for agriculture and for industry, with a view to the development of the inland parts of the country. That obligation has so far always been ignored by the Railway Administration. Provision is, however, made in the Act of Union under which the Railway can every year, out of profits, make contributions to the Renewals Fund and to the Rates Fund. At this particular period the Renewals Fund is a most essential fund because we are unable to get the necessary trucks, locomotives and other rolling stock to maintain our rolling stock up to past standard. Consequently it is a matter of the utmost importance that the Minister should make the Renewals Fund as strong as possible so that after the war he will be able to purchase all the necessary rolling stock, because we know that a large proportion of our rolling stock is wearing out at the moment, and the General Manager himself has told us that already there are twenty or thirty locomotives which should have been taken out of service, that there are coaches and trucks which should have been scrapped, but which are still in use today. That being the position, the Minister will have our full support to make the Renewals Fund as strong as possible so that it will be able to bear this burden when the war is over. In regard to the Rates Fund I also agree with the hon. member for Roodepoort that the Minister should make a special effort to strengthen it, and increase it to £20,000,000. We welcome this. Hon. members will recollect that I have urged the Minister very strongly in the past to make this fund as strong as possible. May I be allowed to quote just one example to explain why it is necessary to make this fund strong? In the world war of 1914 to 1918 we also had the spectacle of an unprecedented increase in our Railway tariffs. The revenue went up tremendously, and large profits were made on the ever-rising traffic. Towards the end of the war, however, the traffic dropped, with the result that deficits set in, and especially after the war the Administration was faced with large deficits. The then Minister of Railways was compelled to put up the rates and in one year he increased them to an amount of £9,800,000. In one year additional rates were imposed, which produced an amount of £9,800,000. If we see that we realise that a Rates Fund of £10,000,000 does not mean very much, and I quite agree with the hon. member for Roodepoort that we should increase this fund to £20,000,000 if it is to be of any use for the purpose for which it was established. That fund, of course, was established in order to prevent Railway rates going up and down. I have already told the House that during the last war, in one year additional Railway rates were imposed to an amount of £9,800,000. The Railways make no provision for reduction of capital. The constitution does not allow it. I think there should be a Reserve Fund for the purpose of gradually reducing the capital debt. At the moment we have an unproductive burden of about £6,000,000 in interest on Railway capital which has to be. paid every year. If, in addition to that, we take the £20,000,000 in wages, it means an amount of £26,000,000, which is an absolute dead burden on the Railways, a burden one cannot bring down unless people are dismissed or wages reduced. That is the only way in which that burden can be cut down. If a time of depression sets in after this war the Railways will suffer very bad times, and they will find it very difficult to maintain existing prices, unless they retrench on a large scale. Of course, if a commission is appointed certain interests will at once make representations for the reduction of rates. In the past, representations were made by the coal industries of Natal, and by the Transvaal Gold Producers, and also by the Agricultural Unions. There are some bodies which are opposed to preferential rates being granted. Those preferential tariffs provide that if two articles of an equal value and of the same kind have to be transported over the South African Railways the article manufactured in the inland part of the country is carried at a cheaper rate than the imported article. That is the policy which has been followed in the past, and that policy has been strongly objected to by the Chamber of Commerce and other interests. The Railways also have gradually shown a tendency to depart from that principle, and the excuse made is that it is difficult to determine whether an article has been manufactured in the inland part of the Union or not. For that reason they were disposed to abolish the preferential rates. I am sorry that that should be the case because our own industries should receive preference over foreign industries which come to this country to compete with our own products. Our customs tariffs are also used for the protection of our local industries, and South Africa requires industries. During war time we have found that there are a great many articles and commodities which we are unable to obtain but which can easily be manufactured in South Africa. It is in the interest of South Africa’s economic welfare to assist, by means of our Railway rates, the development of our industries to the utmost extent. There is another objection which continually crops up, and that is an objection to the white labour policy of the Railways. That objection has come from the gold producers, the Chamber of Industries and others. The attitude adopted by them is that the Railways should not be called upon to pay for the white labour policy on the Railways. They say that if white labour has to be employed the difference between the wages of Europeans and non-Europeans should be paid by the Central Government, by way of subsidy. I am glad to say that the Granet Commission found that white labour on the Railways is just as economic as non-white labour. It has always been the attitude of the Nationalist Party that the white workers are entitled to, and are worth, every penny they get. I am even inclined to think that the Minister agrees with us in that respect, because during the time that he has been Minister he has improved the wage scales of these people. I therefore want to express the hope that the Minister, when he takes steps in regard to Railway rates, will keep in mind the lowly paid class of workers, and the necessity of improving their conditions. There is poverty, there is even starvation among them, and it is the duty of the State to see to it that none of its servants live below the breadline and in a state of poverty. It is the duty of the State to pay decent wages and set thus an example to factories and industries. I therefore want to ask the Minister, when reviewing the rates, to bear in mind that any change in the rates should not be made at the expense of white labourers on the Railway. Another objection which has been raised in the past, and which in days to come may perhaps be raised again, is that there are branch lines in which a capital of about £14,000,000 has been invested, and which do not pay, and it is contended that the Central Government and not the consumers should bear that burden. That is the attitude adopted by industrial concerns and by other bodies which hold that the Railways should not bear that burden of £14,000,000, but that the Central Government should. I want to point out, however, that it has been proved in the past that no one can say definitely what is the loss on a branch line because the branen lines serve as feeders to the main line.

Without the branch lines the main line possibly might show very much poorer results. That being so, one cannot determine exactly what the situation is in regard to the branch lines. But we do want to urge the Minister to consider the point that branch lines which run to a dead end today, should be extended to link up with other lines. A Commission of Enquiry was appointed some time ago to go into this question, and that Commission made a strong recommendation that branch lines should be extended, and strong representations have been made to the Government in that respect. I shall be glad if hon. members who have such lines in their constituencies will also make strong representations to the Minister for the extension of their lines. The Railways in South Africa, and throughout the world as a matter of fact, are run on. certain main principles regarding the fixing of rates and the policy to be followed. The first principle is that there is a certain class of traffic on which the Railway rates charged are very much lower than the average cost per train mile. It is the attitude adopted by our Administration, and it is the attitude of all Railway concerns in the world, that certain goods must be carried at less than the average cost per train mile. Agricultural tariffs fall under the category of “lower tariffs” and raw materials for factories and goods for export are also carried at lower rates. It is important that whatever provision may be made in other respects we should continue to apply those lower rates to the classes of traffic which I have mentioned. Secondly, there are certain articles which can be carried at a higher rate than the average cost per train mile. That, again, is the attitude adopted in other countries. There is a low class of traffic and a high class of traffic. Thirdly, there is the principle that it is profitable for the Railways to carry new additional traffic at rates considerably below the average total cost per ton mile, rather than make the transport so expensive that it does not pay to send these goods by rail. These are the three main principles of Railway tariff economy. The whole system of Railway rates in South Africa rests on that. In other countries the same thing is done. I even believe that the gap between the higher and the lower rates is still bigger in countries like America and England, but I want to quote a few figures to show the extent of the gap even in South Africa. The position was that 85.27 per cent. of traffic last year was responsible for 41.84 per cent. of the revenue, while 14.73 per cent. of traffic was responsible for 58.16 per cent. of the revenue, Or putting it differently, 30½ tons of traffic produced £12,118,000 and 5¼ tons brought in £17,000,000. But it is in the interest of the Railways to do this. Take for instance the transport of cattle to Johannesburg. If the rate is made so high that the farmer cannot sell his cattle and cannot make a profit, then the Railways lose that revenue. The Railways take up this attitude, and quite rightly, that the tariffs must be such as to enable them to retain the traffic. A former Chief Accountant of the Railways calculated that about 44 per cent. of the Railway expenditure remain constant, whether the traffic increased or decreased. For instance, there is interest on capital. That remains the same, whether the traffic goes up or down. He reckoned that 44 per cent. of the expenditure remains constant, even if there were fluctuations in the traffic. It is therefore a matter of importance that a large proportion of the Railway traffic is carried at lower rates, to enable the Railways to exist. I said earlier on that after the last war Railway rates were increased tremendously, and I want to come back to that a little later. We can expect after the war, although perhaps not immediately after the war, to have another falling off in the traffic over the Railways and it is perfectly clear that the Minister will have to do something. He himself has told us that he has seen the red light, and that something will have to be done for the future. After the rates had been increased by £9,800,000 per annum Mr. Jagger reduced the rates again by about £3,000,000 per annum. Concessions were made, particularly in regard to bunker coal, and other branches of industry, too, were given reductions, but those reductions were accompanied by an enormous retrenchment in wages and salaries. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) referred to the retrenchments between 1930 and 1932. I think if hon. members compared those reductions with the reductions in the fixed wages and the paying off of officials after the last war, they will see that the position at that time was much worse. Mr. Jagger even went so far as to replace white Railway labourers on the branch lines by non-Europeans, and any method was applied for the purpose of bringing down Railway expenditure. I hope the Minister will bear in mind that he is ere long going to be faced with such a state of affairs. For that reason we want to move an amendment. We are not convinced that the Minister has done all in his power to avail himself of the favourable conditions in which the Railways find themselves to build up a reserve fund to help the Railways through when the inevitable depression sets in after the war. We therefore want to move—

I think the Minister himself will support us. The Minister told us that the rebate given by the Railways last year to the Department of Defence and to other nations using our Railways for war traffic, was 33⅓ per cent., and he went on to say that if the Railways had to handle all their traffic at such a rebate it would mean a loss running into millions. In other words, the Minister admitted that by giving the Department of Defence, and by giving England and America and other countries, which use our Railways for war purposes, this rebate, the Railways are suffering heavy losses. The Railway users have to pay for these losses, but the Minister has now gone further and he has lately increased the rebate to 50 per cent. The losses to the Railway today must therefore be enormous. The General Manager of Railways says that the loss which the Government is suffering through the rebate to the Departement of Defence amounts to £3,300,000 per year. If that is so then we take up the attitude that if the Government wants to assist other Governments in regard to the war effort this should be paid for out of the Central Revenue Fund and not by the Railway users. In 1939 the then Government made a proposal to allow certain rebates on agricultural articles for transport over the Railways, and those rebates would have represented an amount of about £1,200,000. It was then proposed that the Central Government should bear £800,000 of that amount and the Railways £400,000. Nobody less than the hon. the Minister of Railways himself got up in this House and strongly protested against the policy which would tax the Railway users in the general interest of the country, That was in 1939, and this is what he said: He did not just speak on his own behalf, he spoke on behalf of big interests in South Africa, and these were his words —

The Minister spoke with authority there; he spoke as the mouthpiece of the big majority of the Railway users, and he said this—

That policy was the rebate on the Railway rates on certain agricultural articles. And the Minister went on—

The Minister objected to that assistance to the agricultural industry being borne by the Railways, and he went on to say—

I therefore expect to get the Minister’s strong support for the amendment. The Minister raised his voice against the Railway users being taxed for the rehabilitation of agriculture. How can the Minister, if he wants to be consistent, allow the Railways to be used today as a war machine? He should stand by us in our protest against the Railways being exploited for the war effort. It is an indirect tax on the Railway users, to use his own words. If taxes have to be imposed let them be imposed on the whole population and not just on the Railway users. Last year the Minister of Finance levied 15 per cent. on Railway tickets. We protested against that. Now we protest against the Railways giving rebates which involve great losses, losses which the Railway users have to pay. I therefore hope the Minister will accept my amendment.

I second. We on this side of the House have no objection to the motion of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) and I even want to go so far as to say that we support it. We are all looking forward to tremendous industrial development, and if the Railway rates are reviewed we shall be pleased. We are in favour of encouraging industrial development as much as possible. I am also pleased that the hon. member for Roodepoort has drawn attention to certain matters which he regards as being in conflict with the Act of Union. As the hon. member has said, and as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) has said, our fathers realised that here in South Africa we must, I would almost say, “nurture” agriculture, and we have to make sure that industries are established and developed in this country. As the hon. member remarked that the spirit of the Act of Union must be adhered to, I just want to quote from that Act to show that we are in entire agreement with him there. Because this is what Clause 127 of the Act of Union says—

We have not the slightest objection to that, but although we have no objection to it we want the other part of that clause also to be carried out. I do not believe that the hon. member for Roodepoort will be so inconsistent as to say that one part of that clause of the Constitution must be carried out, but not the other part. Nor do I believe the Minister will take up that attitude. They should therefore support our amendment. What we propose is in conformity with the Constitution. Last year a tax was imposed on first and second class railway passengers. This tax has produced—not for the Railways but for the Department of Defence from the 1st April, 1943, to the 31st December, 1943, an amount of £287,873 10s. Now, we are asking that the Commission of Enquiry which is proposed must also find out whether this tax imposed on railway travellers, is in conformity with the spirit of the Act of Union, and in referring to that I again want to quote the final part of Clause 127 of the Constitution—

That is what the Act of Union says. It does not say that if the country is at war the Railway Administration may render to the Department of Defence services on which large sums of money will be lost. Will the Minister now try to reconcile that with the Act of Union. Even his own General Manager contradicts that. In the General Manager’s Report for the year ending 31st March, 1943, portions of which I quoted on a previous occasion, the matter is also dealt with, and in his concluding paragraph the General Manager says something which is applicable to the motion of the hon. member for Roodepoort. The General Manager despises the whole principle and says that it is in conflict with the principle laid down in the Constitution. He refers there to the passengers’ tax of 1943 and goes on to say—

We on this side of the House therefore feel that according to the evidence, according to the Law itself, according to the testimony of the General Manager, and according to the speech of the hon. member for Roodepoort this Railway Passengers Tax does not produce money which goes into the coffers of the Railway, and we believe that it interferes with the policy of cheap transport which is necessary for agriculture and industries in South Africa. That is what the Minister’s own General Manager says. But we go further than that. We say that that is not the only thing that is happening which is in conflict with the objects and tendency of the Act of Union. We say that the rebate given to the Department of Defence to help the war does not conform with the spirit of the South Africa Act either. I cannot understand the hon. member for Roodepoort at all there. He says that the Railway Passengers Tax is in conflict with the principles of the South Africa Act, but when a rebate is given to the Department of Defence, and when transport is carried at a loss, then it is not in conflict with the spirit of the South Africa Act. He says he has no objection to it.

No.

The hon. member said: “As far as I am concerned, with that I have no quarrel”.

Not at the moment.

If his conscience pricks him in the one instance it must also do so in the other instance, if he has a consistent conscience. If we pause for a moment at the rebate which the Railways give the Department of Defence we find that the General Manager in his report puts it this way, that the Railways have given a rebate of £1,500,000 per annum on goods and passengers to the Defence Department for the past four years, so that altogether the amount thus given to the Department of Defence totals £6,000,000. The General Manager in his report goes further and says that the rebate which has been given now amounts to £3,300,000. In other words, at the end of this year it will mean that the Railways, in contravention of the South Africa Act have presented the Department of Defence with an amount of £9,300,000. The Minister in his budget speech made a remark which struck me. Last year he differed from us in regard to the Rates Fund. He tried to ridicule the suggestion of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) that the Rates Fund should be increased to £20,000,000. He said that there was no reason why we should be afraid of a depression. But now the Minister in his budget speech has told us that he can see the red light, and that the danger signals are there, and with great enthusiasm he mentioned that it was the policy of the Railways to make considerable contributions to the Rates Fund. He enthusiastically mentioned that the Fund if possible should be increased to £20,000,000. He now thoroughly agrees with what he tried to ridicule last year. Would not this £9,300,000 which has been presented to the Department of Defence by way of rebate have been a splendid amount to strengthen the Rates Fund? And provision could also have been made then for the policy of cheap transport, with a view to agriculture and industries. But that is not all the Railways have done for the war effort. The Minister started off by giving the Military authorities a rebate of 15 per cent. Afterwards he increased that to 33⅓ per cent. and from the 1st April, 1943, the rebate has been 50 per cent. We now find that the Minister’s goodwill and charity do not end in South Africa. He went even further and he gave a 33⅓ per cent. rebate to countries entirely outside the Union. He gave that rebate to Elizabethville, and he also gave it to traffic, to the Belgian Congo and French Central Africa. I know what the Minister will reply. He will say that this is our opportunity—that today is our chance to extend our trade to the North. I can almost prophesy that he is going to say that.

Not today.

But I feel, and from what I know of that Party’s policy, it means nothing more or less than an attempt to promote the Allies’ war effort. For that reason I say that when the Minister imposed the Railway Passengers Tax he imposed a tax on his own people, but he did not impose it on the troops of the Allied nations. Imagine! Our own people in South Africa have to pay tax but the soldiers and sailors from England, Russia, China and America are not taxed. They can travel on our Railways without paying this surcharge of 15 per cent. If the Minister replies that he did so with the object of extending our trade then we can only say: “No, we prefer to believe that this rebate during war time has been allowed for the purpose of promoting the war effort.” But that is not all. There is a tremendous shortage of trucks in South Africa. The Minister went to the Railway Workshops and more than 1,000 men who could have built those trucks were transferred for the purpose of making war equipment. We cannot build enough trucks to meet South Africa’s needs, and the Minister has had to go out of his way to have 1,000 steel trucks built by a certain firm in Johannesburg on the cost-plus system. The Minister himself has admitted that those trucks will be built at a price higher than the price at which they could have been built in our own workshops. As a matter of fact the Minister does not even know what they are going to cost him. In reply to a question he said that not a single truck was finished yet, and he therefore did not know what the cost was going to be, because the price would be calculated on the cost-plus system. In 1943 the Minister had no fewer than 1,278 trucks built in our own workshops. The artisans there could do the work, but in spite of that the Minister came to this House the other day and told us that he was having 1,000 steel trucks built by an outside firm because it was in the interest of the encouragement of our own industries to do so. I have no objection to that, but when the Railway Department can build those trucks itself and the Minister then lends out his workshops to the Department of Defence then I definitely do object. In that year we built 24 passenger coaches in our own Railway workshops. We also built ten locomotives ourselves, and we are very proud of that fact. Let us tell the Minister that we are very proud of the fact that we are building trucks, passenger coaches and locomotives in our own workshops.

What has that to do with this debate?

The Minister says that I am getting away from the point. The point I want to make is that our own workshops can build those trucks, but the Minister lends his workshops to the Defence Department, and as a result he has to place an order for 1,000 trucks with a certain firm which carries out that order on the cost-plus system. It is very relevant to this motion, but as the Minister takes exception to my raising this point, I want to mention another point. In spite of the fact that we are so short of locomotives that 632 of them should have been scrapped six years ago the Minister has sold ten locomotives to the Sudan Government for £40,000.

The hon. member must not elaborate that point too much.

Well, I shall leave it at that, but the point we want to make is that we support the motion of the hon. member for Roodepoort as far as it goes. But I also heartily support the amendment and we can see no reason for the hon. member for Roodepoort being so inconsistent as to refuse to accept it. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) has quoted to us from Hansard to show that at one time, in 1939, the Minister of Railways himself expressed himself in exactly the same terms as we have done here—in those days he supported the principle which we have adumbrated today. We therefore trust that the hon. member for Roodepoort, as well as the Minister, will accept the amendment.

I think I might at this stage intervene and say a few words in regard to the Government’s attitude on this motion and deal with the question of rating policy generally. I would put my hon. friends opposite out of their misery at once by saying that I have no intention whatever of being drawn off the rails in the way they have been dragged off the rails in discussing Railway rates. There are plenty of opportunities to discuss the general policy of the Government on Railways, in regard to the passenger surcharge tax, in respect of special rebates, and other matters, but it is certainly quite inappropriate to discuss these matters in connection with the motion of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen). Now the hon. member for Roodepoort pointed out that the tariff policy of the South African Railways is based on the same fundamental principles that determine Railway rates all over the world. There is no Railway in the world and there never has been any Railway in the world that did not apply the same principle. Over half a century no one has been able to find a better principle, and that principle is that we charge traffic what it will bear. In our case in the Union I would like to describe that a little more elaborately. I think we charge our traffic what it will bear, but we also have some regard to the cost of conveyance. I make that point because I know that in our case there are cases where some traffic such as coal, grain, cement, mineral ores and the like, which are carried in great bulk, offer far better pay loads than some high rated articles or commodities. But that principle is applied all over the world in all sorts of different conditions, but with some modifications—some very important modifications. Every country has its own special variation. Every country has its own peculiar problems; economic conditions vary from one country to another, and then there are also such questions as density of traffic, density of population, and the types of traffic to be handled. One always has to bear in mind how that principle is to be applied—all these various points have a bearing on how that principle is to be applied, that traffic will be charged what it can bear. The Union has its own special conditions, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Roodepoort. There is for one thing no competition so far as the South African Railways are concerned. We have no canals, no navigable rivers, we have a trifling sea coast traffic which has very little influence on the Railways in any case. Our country is very sparsely populated. Great distances separate the main urban centres, the incidence of heavy traffic is scattered over a wide area. Industrial supplies must be hauled from different parts and over considerable distances. These are the conditions under which we have to apply the principle that traffic shall be charged what it can bear. But there is another very important principle so far as any Railway is concerned, and that is the question of turnover. Turnover is a matter of great importance on any Railway —it is all important. But it is probably more important with us than with most. It must be borne in mind that so far as South Africa is concerned we have sunk a very large capital in the Railways—the hon. member referred to £155,000,000—that is the amount of money we have borrowed.

I said £175,000,000.

That is the money which we have borrowed, but actually there is more money sunk in our Railways than that, and in fact the capital sunk in our Railways is just on the £200,000,000 mark. Bear in mind that that has already been sunk. To run these Railways a large staff must be employed, a great deal of expenditure incurred in maintenance and general supervision, and these charges, the capital charges, the maintenance charges, and all other charges, remain more or less the same, regardless of the amount of turnover on the Railways. Whether traffic be large or small, these charges remain. It is therefore of the first importance that if we are going to make any changes in our tariff, we must change these tariffs in such a way that we shall increase and not decrease the turnover, because greater turnover spreads expenditure over a greater tonnage. We can increase very materially the turnover without substantial increase in our expenditure, and therefore we have at all times to keep a balance between our income on the one hand and the turnover on the other hand, because turnover is just as vital to our coming out as the rates we charge. It is of the utmost importance that we shall get a maximum return on the capital investment which we have in our South African Railways. Following out these principles, it means that certain classes of traffic, agricultural products and raw materials, must be charged lower rates than other traffic which must be charged higher rates again. We cannot charge them all an even rate because it is important that we encourage traffic which will give us a turnover. Well, now, it will be obvious therefore that if we can in fact double our turnover, we can reduce our rates. That has not actually happened to any extent in South Africa. During the period since Union there has been no substantial general reductions in rates, but on the other hand there has been no substantial increase in rates, and that is significant because it must be remembered that during that period there has been a substantial increase in the expenditure of the Railways. We have had constantly increasing charges; we have had to provide better working conditions, we have had many other expenses, all of which cost money. We have had increasing capital charges, mounting maintenance costs, and yet, despite all these facts, Railway tariffs since Union have not shown any substantial increase as a whole, due to the fact, and only due to the fact that since Union we have had a very substantial increase in the turnover. It may interest the House to know what these increases are. In 1909, just before Union, the tonnage handled on the whole of the South African Railways, was 9,000,000 tons per annum. In 1920, that had increased to 15,000,000 tons, in 1930 it had increased to 24,000,000 tons, in 1940 it had increased to 32,000,000 tons, and in 1943 to 36,000,000 tons.

Everything increased except the rates?

The rates have shown no increase.

Yes, but they should have decreased on such a turnover.

Yes; but as I explained a moment ago our working costs have risen very much. But there is the supreme test, that during these years we have increased the tonnage four times, while the population increased by one-half.

How much of that increase is due to military traffic?

There was no military traffic worth speaking about when we reached the 32,000,000 mark. Of the 36,000,000 tons very little is direct military traffic, although a good deal may be due to the war. Now, during this period when the population increased by half the railway tonnage has increased four times. Does not that reflect good rating policy?

I have heard that for nearly twenty years now.

Well, I can assure the hon. member that he will continue hearing it as long as members criticise the Railways as they have done today. No, I think these figures demonstrate the soundness, the inherent soundness, of the South African Railway tariff policy, as well as the very important contribution the South African Railways have made towards the agricultural and industrial development of this country. These figures and principles which I have enunciated show in fact how closely allied the interests of the country and the Railways are in the framing of the tariffs. If a tariff is altered to increase turnover, it is obvious that at the same time maximum business for the country is being secured. Well, now, that being the case who are the best people to go into the question of tariff alteration? Who are the best people to consider the problem of tariff adjustment? Obviously someone with an intensive knowledge of Railway practice, who thoroughly understands what the repercussions may be of any alteration in the tariff, on the turnover, and who at the same time has a wide knowledge of the industrial and commercial development of South Africa.

Where are these people?

Which people?

Oh, you know—the people you spoke about.

The hon. member is moving a little too quickly.

Yes, I think I am, too quickly for you.

I shall come to this point in good time, let the hon. member exercise a little patience.

Perhaps he wants to tell you himself.

The House has been told quite recently by my colleague, the Minister of Economic Development, that he is proposing to have a complete enquiry made into the general question of the development and distribution of industry in this country by the Board of Trade, and I have asked that a special feature of that enquiry shall be the effect of transportation rates on that enquiry, and on the problems which have been staged in that enquiry. Therefore, you will have at one and the same time an enquiry into the possibilities of the industrial and economic development, and the effect of Railway tariffs on that development. I suggest that that is the best enquiry you can have, and I have confidence in the Board of Trade. I think they are the people to deal with this matter. They are the people who will get into touch …

Do you say the Board of Trade or the Board of Aid.

Now, let me at the same time call the attention of the House to this fact, that Railway tariffs have been ever since Union a matter for frequent investigation. There was a Railway Tariff Enquiry of 1930. There was the Railways and Harbours Affairs Commission, know as the Granet Commission, in 1934. There was the Base Metal Industries Commission which dealt with Railway rates in 1939, and the Rural Industries Commission in 1940—all of which dealt with Railway tariffs. I think hon. members will agree that if there was anything fundamentally unsound in the Railways Tariff Policy, in the Railways rating policy, that fact could not have been concealed from all these searching investigations, but not one of these commissions or committees drew attention to any serious weakness in the tariff framing policy of the South African Railways. It is I know often contended that the Railway rating policy has had the effect of centralising industries in populated areas. We are often told that the result of our rating policy means that all commerce and industry goes into the big urban centres and that at the expense of the rural centres. In reply to that let me make this quite clear, that at their best, or at their worst, Railway rates have very little bearing indeed on the siting of any industry. Railway rates have a very small bearing on the economics of any industry. I have been given to understand that because we charge raw material at a relatively lower rate than the finished article, we may in these cases be influencing manufacturers to go to the markets, to the towns, rather than to establish their industries where their raw material is. But while I think there is very little in that, I have asked the Railway rates officers to go into the question to see whether any adjustment is called for. I have no desire whatever, even in the smallest degree, to drive industries away from rural centres into urban areas by any rating that I may be responsible for, and I am quite prepared to alter the rates if it is necessary to prevent that contingency. But on the other hand I want to make it quite clear that the rating of any product at any time has very little bearing on the question. Unfortunately the Railway rate is a favourite thing to blame, but there are much more important factors. Apart from the question of raw material and markets which I have dealt with, there is the question of labour supply, the ruling wage rates, the question of power and water supply, fuel, in certain cases even climate, housing and recreation for employees, and a desire to have that industry placed conveniently for directors and others. All these things that. I have enunciated are of cardinal importance, but they are not so easy to talk about as Railway rates, and if anyone wants to find an excuse for the non-establishment of industries in the rural areas, he blames the Railway rates. To show how little Railway rates affect the question, you have only to look at raw materials; take only one kind of raw material and you will find invariably that the industry is placed where the raw material is—salt, slate, coal, cement. Where you get an industry based upon one raw product, that industry invariably opens where that raw product is, but where you get, an industry which uses three or four raw products and sometimes even more—it may even import certain products—that industry for various reasons must be placed in a central point where all the raw materials must reach it; and the fact that those industries dealing with one raw material are placed where the material is, shows that Railway rates are not driving the industries into the urban areas. I might quote a paragraph that I came across the other day which shows that this problem also affects Railways in America. This is a quotation from a statement by Mr. J. L. Shepherd, Freight Traffic Manager, of the Illinois Central Railways. He was commenting on the possibility of manipulating Railway rates to encourage industries, and this is what he said—

This opinion which was expressed by the Freight Traffic Manager of the Illinois State Railways entirely confirms all the expert opinions that I have ben given in respect of our own problem in this country.

Is that not a private railway? It is not State. owned.

No.

You said “State Railways.”

I should have said the Illinois Central Railways. There is not so very much wrong with the Railway tariff policy. Nothing that we have done in respect of our tariffs has done anything but increase the turnover of the Railway which is a very good barometer as to the turnover of the country. It is sad but true that in this House the clamour is always for reduced rates and increased expenditure and that brings me to another point in connection with this matter. I come now to the hard business aspect of this question, the aspect that guides the Railways, largely masters in their own house, as far as the rating policy is concerned. Ultimately the Railway revenue and expenditure must balance. The country requires and gets efficient service, but that must be paid for. Revenue is obtained wholly from our tariffs and by our rating policy. Any alteration in those must therefore be studied not only as to the effect on industry but as to the effect on railway solvency. A fine balance must always be struck by experts, and consequently railway revenue and the minimum return to secure the payability of the railways, must, be insured. In the last financial year high rated traffic represented 15 per cent. of the total tonnage but was responsible for 58 per cent. of our revenue. Low rated traffic represented 85 per cent. of our total tonnage, which returned only 42 per cent. of traffic revenue. If high rated traffic decreases, there must obviously be a much larger increase in low rated traffic if we are going to keep a balance as between expenditure and revenue. In these circumstances once again it is quite clear that the tariffs on the railways can only be understood and can only be altered and the policy in respect of it can only be considered by men who are experts in all aspects of the question. In regard to the question of an outside body interfering with tariffs, let us make this quite clear to the House, that no railway tariff in South Africa can be altered up or down without the consent of the Minister. The Minister must approve of such alterations. That means, in effect, the Parliament must approve of such alterations because the Minister acts for the Parliament; and if that is so it is quite clear that no outside tribunals of any kind whatever can really intervene because there is no tribunal that I have ever heard of created anywhere, except possibly the High Court in America which, I believe, interprets constitutional questions, that can override Parliament and the rates in the South African Railways are under the democratic system altered by Parliament. It is Parliament that has the final say. In these circumstances I would like to say in conclusion that while I appreciate very highly the interest which the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) has shown by his extensive knowledge and objective outlook in this matter, a knowledge and outlook which I think, entitles him to be heard in this House on the subject of railway rating and policy, I think his motion at this time is really unnecessary. I think we must leave the Board of Trade and Industries to deal with the whole economic structure of our country, and the Minister of Economic Development has agreed to railway tariffs being specially stressed in regard to this particular enquiry. There we have an enquiry by people who not only can understand the railway point of view, who not only can understand that the railways have to come out on their budgets but who can also understand the effect of tariff alterations both on the railways and on industries. There is the point too, that we do not want tribunals sitting all the time changing the rates every fortnight. Stability is what the commercial and industrial people require, and I think they should get it. In these circumstances I want to suggest to the hon. member for Roodepoort that he should not press his motion unduly. I think that this discussion has been extremely useful. I have had some light and guidance on the question of tariff rates from one or two members who have spoken, and I feel I am going to get some more from those who have interrupted me, and I am sure that by the time the debate is finished we shall be in a better position to know what alterations we can make in the future. But I think it would be impossible for the Government to accept any hard and fast rule for an enquiry until the enquiry which is now in progress has been completed.

I hesitated at first to speak because the Minister stood up and indicated that he is not willing to accept any suggestion that there should be an enquiry into rates with a view to the betterment of conditions generally in the country. But on second thoughts I am going to move an amendment. Whilst being entirely in agreement with the seconder and the mover in all they have said about the need for the review, I think they have not covered the ground completely in their motion which calls upon the Government to appoint a body consisting of the Railway Administration, with representatives of industry, commerce and agriculture. I think my amendment will meet the position of the Minister. He has told us that whatever outside body or bodies comment upon the tariffs in the Railways, the fact is that when the issue is decided Parliament will decide it. I want to say that that point will be fully covered if the members of this House are harnessed to the work, and I want to say that if the investigation, which has been urged not only by members of this House, but has been urged because of pressure brought to bear from outside the House by people who are experts in their particular line, were given as a job of work to parliamentarians, then I think the point will be met, that we who are members of Parliament, who represent the body that ultimately says what shall be the policy in regard to tariffs, meet all the people concerned and hear what they have to say and then decide on that policy. No request can be more reasonable than that. It seems to me that we have a peculiar kind of modesty in this House. We go to the people and tell them that we are the people; if they do not put us in Parliament, they are going to have a jolly bad time because we are the best people they can find …

That is not modesty.

I am coming to the part where we are too modest. We tell the people to elect us and when we come here we hesitate to do those jobs which should be done by us. One of the jobs of the Minister is to hear what the people have to say on Railway rates. I say that the mover did not go far enough, as he himself indicated in his remarks. After he had made the case for the enquiry, he started talking about all the people who are concerned and who should have representation, but he has not included all the people who are concerned in his particular recommendation. He only referred to the manager of Railways, representatives of commerce, industry and agriculture. There is another big body of people concerned in this matter, and I believe that we should hear the remarks of that big body of people who do the actual work on the Railways; they are the people who can claim to be experts: They may not have any particular degrees; they may not be in the position of possessing degrees in economics, nor are they men of the schools, but in pursuance of their day to day tasks, they have acquired a considerable knowledge of Railway economics. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) if he were not so modest could claim to be something of an expert too, as he has had experience on the job, a former employee of the Railways. We not only ought to face our responsibility as members of Parliament, and if the Minister is right, to scotch the suggestion that the tariffs are wrong, but we should face it in the way that we should ourselves be the recipients of the evidence, and after having heard everyone on the subject we should make recommendations. I am therefore going to move a further amendment to the motion in the hope that the Minister will not be so final. I move—

If this is accepted, I believe that you will have ruled out the possibility of a customer telling you what he ought to pay, of a worker on the Railways telling you what he thinks he ought to get on the job, and you will put. the job of judging on the shoulders of the people who ought to do it. I move the amendment in the hope that the Minister will agree that it meets the point which he has made.

I second this amendment, and in doing so I should like to associate myself with the comments made by the mover of the amendment. I feel that he has made out a fairly justifiable case for his suggested amendment to the motion moved by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen), and I should like to say that I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Roodepoort. I consider that he made out a very splendid and a very satisfactory case. I respect also the words of the hon. Minister, but I should like to give him this assurance, that it was perfectly obvious that the commercial men in the constituency that I represent are not quite so satisfied with the Railway tariffs as he thinks they should be, and in consequence I feel that an investigation of this description will be beneficial to all parties concerned, and I think the amendment suggests the best way of handling this investigation. After all, we members of this House are the elected representatives of the people and the Railway is the property of the people. I feel therefore that the amendment provides for the more substantial methods of handling this investigation, and that is to appoint a select committee. I do not wish to occupy the time of the House unduly. I cannot add anything more to what has been said by the hon. member in regard to this amendment, so I confine myself to seconding it.

I think we can say to. the hon. Minister: “How hast thou fallen, Oh, proud sun of the morning.” For years the hon. Minister has been in this House, and he made exactly the same speeches as hon. members opposite and he fought for the reduction of tariffs. I heard him from the gallery ever since he became a member of this House, pleading for the reduction of tariffs, and today he turns round and says that the matter should be left to the financial experts. Does he believe that this Board is comprised of financial experts? The hon. Minister comes along and he now states that Railway rates do not affect industry. Let me tell him something. We went to the Railways some years ago and we asked the Railways to reduce the rates on materials to the factory that was at Parys. That request was refused, and as a result Parys lost the factory, and it went to Durban—and the Mississippi still goes rolling on. There are quite a number of us in this country who have started industries or who want to start industries, and we know that one of the great things that kills us is railway rates. That has been the cry of the industrialist for many years in South Africa, and that was the cry of my hon. friend before he became Minister of Railways and Harbours. What is the result of the present tariff policy? The result is that all the factories are today in Durban, Cape Town and Johannesburg, and our towns are getting too large. We would like to get our towns smaller and to give the rural people an opportunity of establishing factories. With the exception of Paarl and Brits, and one or two other places, the rural towns are going back, and all our factories are now going to the larger cities and the people of the larger cities do not want those factories, whereas the rural people do want those factories; and it is so easy for the Minister just to push aside Parliament, to push aside the members of this House. I say that with a weak Opposition such as we have on the other side, we will have to criticise our Ministers. The country wants the railway rates lower; the country wants rural industries, and the country is sick and tired of a Government which always pushes things on to a commission. What will this commission do? It will report to the hon. Minister. He will go on his yacht and he will come back on his yacht and perhaps go out on his yacht again and come back and put the report in a pigeon hole, and that is as far as we will get. I have the greatest respect for the men who are working on the railways, but once you tie them up with those Stellenbosch professors and economists, then God help you. That is exactly what you are going to do with the Board of Trade. We have very little faith in the Board of Trade. We have very little faith in boards on the whole; and now the Minister gets up and says: “I agree with everything you say, but I am going to put it off again, and we shall do nothing until next Session or the Session thereafter”. In the meanwhile we in the interior are the people who are suffering. It is the people in Johannesburg who are keeping the railways going. The Minister has always said that Johannesburg carries the railways on its back, and: “Johannesburg pays far too high rates, and I cannot understand why the Minister will not allow us to have lower rates.” That is what the hon. Minister said before he became Minister of Railways. Let him practice what he preaches.

On behalf of the Platteland I wish to appeal for a revision of the railway rates. I too can quote the case of a factory that should have been started in northern Natal, but that has been started in Pretoria instead, entirely due to railway tariff rates. When we were discussing that factory with the Government of that time, we asked that the rates on the finished products should be more or less comparable with the rates on the raw materials. That request was not granted. I would suggest that we introduce something of this sort. Cannot we have such rates on the finished article from any town with a population, of say, less than 10,000 to a market area where the population is over 10,000 Europeans? In those cases any industry established in the small area would be charged a rate on the finished product to the larger towns that would be comparable with the rates that would be paid on the raw materials conveyed to that large town. I would also appeal for a similar rate on main and branch lines, which after all do serve our smaller country areas. At the moment, as far as I know, goods carried from Durban to Ermelo, which is a matter of 440 odd miles, at Rate I, are charged for at the rate of 6d. per 100 lbs. more than goods carried from Durban to Johannesburg, which is 480 odd miles, for the simple reason that the line from Glencoe to Ermelo is a branch line. We are penalised on those branch lines in having to pay higher rates than the main line rates. I would appeal, therefore, to the Minister that if we really are in earnest about developing our platteland industries, that we should grant the same rates on the branch lines as are given to the main line. The hon. the Minister told us that if we looked round we would find that where our own raw material is used the factory was usually established at the place where the raw material could be found. He gave us, as examples, where coal is found and salt is found and so on. But I would like to ask him if we find the furniture factories established where the wood is grown. Are we making our stinkwood furniture at Knysna, or, owing to the low rate that appertains to the wood, are we carrying that wood also to the large centres to be turned into furniture up there? This centralisation of our industries is certainly not to the benefit of the country. We want to see our industries spread out, and I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister has asked this commission that is going to enquire into industrial development, to go into the effect that Railway tariffs have on rural industrial development. I sincerely hope that after they have gone into the question very thoroughly, and when they have taken into consideration the advisability of establishing our industries right through the country, that we shall have the necessary Railway tariff revision, and that then it will make no difference whatsoever from a Railway point of view as to where an industry is established. It does today make a difference, and I feel we can work out a scheme whereby Railway revenue would not really suffer, and yet. where we would do away with waste, where we would not carry unnecessary materials to areas where they should not be carried to. It is surely a matter of sound economics that wastage should be avoided, and usually in manufacture there are the waste materials, and if we can manufacture the goods on the spot, where they should be manufactured where the bulk of the materials are, we shall certainly have avoided unnecessary haulage; even though unnecessary haulage may bring a certain amount of revenue it is definitely waste and should not be encouraged just for the purpose of possibly getting something in the way of revenue.

I listened with interest to the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) when he introduced his motion today, and I feel that we are gratified that he has brought this motion forward because if anything is occupying the attention of this country today it is the development of industry after the war. It is a subject which is uppermost in all our minds. It is certainly a subject on which too much stress cannot be laid in view of the peculiar circumstances which we are facing. I was sorry, however, that he did not devote himself a little more closely to the specific terms of his motion; at times he was inclined to digress and it developed into Railway taxation, and so forth. Then we listened to the hon. the Minister. We have also had two amendments and the debate has now reached that stage of consideration. First of all with regard to the amendments by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood), I do not think his amendments are germane to the issue before us. I do not think that the extension of this motion to consider the taxation on the Railways—the Railway passenger tax as was introduced last year— is germane at all. I think that that will side track the issue, and only add confusion to the matter, because the motion in itself will be quite sufficient for any responsible body to consider. With regard to the second amendment, that by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne), to send this to a Select Committee, I rather feel that a Select Committee will not be the best body to consider this intricate matter. Railway rating, after all is said and done, is the foundation of the successful operation of the Railways; as the Minister has told us, the great bulk of the revenue of the Railways is derived from the rates. It is a subject of a high degree of intricacy. I believe it is nearly as complicated as our present taxation; I say nearly, though at one time it was a more complicated subject. But this is a subject, the investigation of which should be undertaken by a body which is eminently suited to understand the implications and intricacies of this very involved subject, and it is for that reason I think it is a good idea that the Minister of Economic Development has taken the step he has—the step to institute an enquiry into the development and distribution of industry by the Board of Trade and Industries. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has been critical of the Board of Trade and Industries, but I think we must bear in mind that that board has recently been in a sense reconstituted; it has been increased and improved upon, and there can now be added to the Board a sub-committee of persons who are to be selected for their special knowledge of the subject to be considered. That, I feel, is a most important aspect of the case, and if to the Board of Trade and Industries members are added who are specially qualified to understand and consider this very intricate subject, I, Sir, feel that that enquiry should result in a great deal of good, and I look forward to the result of that enquiry.

At 4.10 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 14th March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

When the debate was adjourned I was in the act of proving—and I think even the Minister will admit that that is so—that according to Clause 22 which will make the Act retrospective in its effect, private rights are being taken away. In other words the land which the settlers have is being burdened with provisions which were not in the original contract. The reply is that the State requires that to be done for the sake of the progress of settlement, but I still feel that the Minister and Parliament have no right after a man has been paying off for twenty or thirty years, and has bought his land, to introduce amendments to his contract and to place further servitudes on the land. If this is to apply to future settlements then the Minister has the right to do so, because he will not be breaking any contracts already made with the settlers, but it is a gross violation of rights if burdens are imposed on land already paid for by settlers, or on land which those settlers have obtained under certain conditions. We further say that if servitudes or burdens are placed on land in future the effect will be that the right type of settler will not come forward. We shall probably get a type of person whom we do not want. It is better to get people who will stay on the land and who will make a success of settlement. I say this is a bad Bill, that it is not in the public interest, and that it will certainly not promote settlement. But the Minister goes still further, and in Clause 3, that is in the new Clause 9 (2), he takes power unto himself even where land has already been transferred, and the purchase price has already been paid, and the people have carried out all their obligations in connection with the land as originally laid down in the contract, to amend the title deeds and to place fresh burdens or servitudes on the land. Surely one cannot take away private rights like that and impose new conditions for certain land. It is not fair. Even the Government must not do it. Private rights are violated by this Bill in the most scandalous manner.

Are you talking about sub-clause (iii) of Clause (3) now?

Yes; that is the clause where the Minister takes the power of proclaiming certain areas where people who already have taken transfer are to be prevented from selling their land to other people. It’s no use the Minister saying that he will not do it, except in special circumstances. The present Minister will not always be there and the Minister has not got the right to distribute privileges and benefits just as he likes. We may get a Minister who wants to get the votes of the settlers.

I don’t need them.

But this Bill is not passed just for the time when the present Minister is in office. We are only human. In two or three years’ time he may perhaps not be here any more, and we may have another Minister who may abuse the law. The Minister will agree that there is a possibility of abuse and if that is so it is wrong. We have always complained of the fact that people are not free to vote as they want to, because they always feel that there is a threat hanging over them. Why then have a Bill such as this which can be abused? This is a very drastic Bill, and it can be abused very badly. Possibly there are some people on settlements who should not be there, and who want to dispose of their land, but surely if that is so other plans can be made. More care can be taken in the selection of the settlers, and other steps too can be taken. If a man gets an unimproved piece of land and if he develops it himself and cultivates it, if he works hard to make it fertile, if he levels it himself, he gets to love his bit of land, and that man is not going to leave the place. But if the Government hands out the land, clears it, gives the man his cattle and all his implements, the man does not develop a love for his land. It is only when he himself cultivates and develops his land that he develops a love for his ground. But if the Government just gives him the land, the cattle and the implements he cannot get to love the land in the way he would love it if he himself had done all the work. I assume that many settlers cannot afford the expense; but if that is so, rather let the State assist them with money to enable them to carry on. Anyhow, the State has to pay for the improvements, and it is better if the man improves the land himself, than have it done by someone else. As a matter of fact, if he does it himself, he will do it more cheaply than if someone else does it. And if he does the levelling of the soil he will cultivate his land in such a way that he will be able to make a living, but that is not the point today. I only mention this to show what can be done to make the settler love his land. I have often in my short life seen that if a man tills the soil and develops his land by the sweat of his brow, he gets to love that land, and he does not want to get rid of it. Anyhow, I have said enough to show that we must protest against this Bill. If the Minister insists on going on with this Bill, he is not going to render a service to the settlers. He is going to create a sort of bywoner on the land, from generation to generation, and those people will never own the land. It will not encourage people to become settlers if they do not have the right to own their own piece of land. Now, I want to say a few words about the clause dealing with the appropriation of land—Clause 4.I don’t really understand this clause. It is linked up with Clause 98 of the Act of 1912. This clause means that if the Government undertakes an irrigation scheme, the Government is entitled, for the purpose of making canals and dams, to expropriate land in accordance with a scheme which has to be approved of by both Houses of Parliament. It may be well if I were to read the whole clause—

The Government can take the land, and of course, it will have to pay for it, but what has that to do with settlement? And if the land has already been expropriated why is it necessary to expropriate it again for settlement? Why must the Minister take more rights for the purpose of expropriation? If the land is needed under the Irrigation Act for the construction of canals or dams, the Government has the power to take it. I really do not understand why this power is taken here. The power already exists in regard to irrigation, so I fail to see why the Government has to make provision in this Bill again for the expropriation of the land?

I cannot expropriate anything which has already been expropriated.

Exactly, then why this clause? I also do not understand why an additional judge has to be appointed to deal with disputes about compensation. I do not agree with the method of compensation, but why must another person be added? There is provision already for a judge and an engineer, and assessors. Surely the Water Court can fix the compensation without anyone else being appointed. The people who act on a Water Court can do all the work. I shall be pleased if the Minister will explain this; he has not done so yet. It looks to me like an insult to the Water Court. Evidence is adduced before the court in regard to the value of the land, and there is a trained judge on the court who is able to judge and who can sift out the truth from the lies, and then there is the engineer who has a lot of experience. Why is another judge needed?

Which subclause are you talking about now?

I shall quote the subclause. It is Clause 4 (6):—

Why must an additional assessor be appointed? The Water Court is quite competent to act without the services of a man like that?

The Act as it stands today makes that provision. [Time limit.]

I welcome the Bill which the Minister has introduced. I do not approve of everything in this Bill, but I want to congratulate the Minister on his courage in having come forward with this measure. There are not as many changes in this Bill as hon. members opposite seem to think. The first objection raised by the Opposition is against Clause 2 which now provides that the occupant of a holding must not keep his major sons on the holding. That is the policy laid down in the old Act which provides that a holding is intended for one settler.

If that is the existing law, why then is the new law made?

Certain regulations, were passed under the old Act, and the Minister was accused of applying those regulations arbitrarily. Today the Minister wants to make this law so that it has to be carried out. We hear a lot about overcrowding, and about the soil being tramped out, and we hear a lot about soil erosion. This is one of the most serious problems we have in this country. To my mind soil erosion is Enemy No. 1 within our borders.

But that is in the law.

The hon. member asked earlier on why this was included in the Bill and now he says it is in the existing law. This has been taken over from the existing law. Then why this great objection? This provision existed in the past.

You are talking about soil erosion now; that was in the existing law. We have no obejctions to that.

I am referring to overcrowding; I want to prevent overcrowding, and that is what this Bill is going to do for us. The next point to which the Opposition strongly objects is Clause 3, old Clause 9. We heard the objection raised again this afternoon that the settler never becomes the owner of his land, but that he always remains a bywoner. We have private owners of land today who also have servitudes on their land.

Not servitudes of this kind.

No, but they do have servitudes on their land.

But surely you know that that is something entirely different.

This is the position. Not a solitary additional obligation is imposed on the settlers—nothing beyond what is imposed on them today.

That is not so.

Those restrictions are imposed on them under the 1937 Act. It is laid down in the Lease that the settler cannot dispose of his land—he is not allowed to alienate, sell or mortgage it. This Bill goes further in this respect, that it also applies those servitudes to the subsequent owners. It does not affect the present settlers.

It applies to the previous owners, and not to the subsequent ones.

No, to every subsequent owner.

And also to the previous ones.

The law today is exactly the same as what is provided in this Bill. Section 9 of the Lease is perfectly clear.

If he sells or mortgages the holding?

Exactly. I therefore say that no further obligations are imposed on the settlers beyond those already applying. That provision is only applicable to subsequent owners, and if we are honest in our intentions and our statements that we want to preserve our land for coming generations, I fail to see why we should raise any objections. We are prepared to impose restrictions on the settlers, and why are we not prepared to protect the settlements for people coming after them? This love disclosed by hon. members opposite looks like a false love to me. This clause has been amended in the way I have indicated, to make it applicable to future owners, and no additional restrictions are imposed on present settlers. We have heard a lot about perpetual slavery and the hon. member who used that expression is the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) who, in his own Act, imposed those very same restrictions on the settlers. If we are now to take his word, that this Bill means slavery for the settlers, the same position must have prevailed under the Act which was passed when he was in charge of the department.

Leave out politics now and come back to the Bill.

I shall whistle to let the hon. member know when I need him. The other objection which has been raised is against Clause 3 in which a restriction is placed on the land, because the Minister is given power under that clause to proclaim areas where no one can obtain land without his consent. This applies to irrigation schemes and closed settlements. We know how many millions of pounds the country has spent on such settlements, and we know that there is not a single settlement in this country where the full price has been paid for the holdings. It has always been subsidised by the State. In the case of irrigation settlements the subsidy has been as much as 75 per cent.

It has been as much 100 per cent.

I can mention half a dozen cases under Section 11 where the full price has been paid.

I am not talking of Section 11 now.

But these people also come under the provisions or this Bill.

I say that the State spends millions of pounds on these settlements to put the land in order, and prepare it for the settlers. If we allow the settlers now to alienate that land the same sort of thing will happen as has happened before—and I have had experience of that. I know that on one of the biggest settlements 40 per cent. of the land has already been taken up by speculators. If that is to happen it means that the Government will have to start fresh irrigation schemes tomorrow to provide for these people. Those things have happened, and that surely was never the intention when those settlements were started. We should not continue making the same mistakes over and over again. I fully support this clause, the object of which is to prevent those mistakes being made. I felt it years ago—I felt it even before I was elected to Parliament—I felt it was one of the greatest blunders to establish irrigation schemes, to rehabilitate the settlers to a certain extent, to allow the settler, the day he thought he could make a profit, to sell the land. The settler does not think what the settlement has cost the State. I entirely agree with the Minister here and I am going to support him. I said at the outset that I welcomed this Bill but I said also that I had certain objections, and I want to tell the Minister frankly what my objections are. My objections are in regard to this clause which has retrospective effect. This Bill will do so much good in this country in days to come that it is not worth while causing trouble by making this clause retrospective. I do not. think it fair to impose other conditions on people who for years and years have been under the impression that they have obtained their settlement lands under certain conditions. I do not think it fair now to impose other conditions on them, and I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister not to insist on this retrospective clause.

The people have involuntarily been brought under the impression that the Minister created this legislation because of exceptional cases. The first example which the Minister mentioned, was that of a young farmer who hired a farm, and who owned 400 head of cattle a few years later. The Minister then deprived him of the farm, thinking that he was rich enough. This is one of the exceptions which the Minister now mentions in support of this Bill. He did not ask how this young farmer came to own 400 head of cattle. He may have had a few head belonging to his father or his brother; he may have bought a portion of the cattle on credit. This same young farmer may owe £200 or £300 on those cattle. Now he is being driven away, and the result is that he has no alternative but to sell those cattle in order to cover his debts. This is one of the so-called examples, one of the exceptions which the Minister mentioned as proof of the fact that this amending legislation was necessary. I want to ask whether that is any justification for passing comprehensive legislation of this nature; must it be done because of this exceptional case? The second exception which the Minister mentioned was that, if a scheme is instituted, the lands adjoining the river may perhaps belong to private owners, and in terms of the law the owner is given the right, on appropriation, to keep out 100 morgen. The example which the Minister gave was that a certain person selected his 100 morgen in the immediate neighbourhood of the station, and this comprehensive Bill must now be introduced to prevent that child of Israel in the future from selecting his 100 morgen around the station. We are accustomed to being forestalled by these people — and I think the Minister too. Why introduce this amending legislation to prevent anything of this kind happening when it only happened on one occasion? What does the Minister want to do with the land surrounding the station? When he gave out that land as small holdings, is was intended that the plot owners should farm and live there; why then should the owner not have the right to become the owner of the land surrounding the station? I cannot understand why, because of exceptional cases, the Minister should introduce this legislation. I want to remind the Minister that last year he brought similar legislation before the House, and that occupied quite a few days. It was in connection with an advisory board for the Olifants River scheme. We protested against and opposed this measure, but the Minister was adamant and passed it. The Advisory Board had to be appointed within a year, and the Minister was in a hurry with this legislation. I asked him why he was in such a hurry. Now I want to ask him whether an Advisory Board has been appointed? No, it has not been appointed. This Act came on the Statute Book, and there the matter ended. The Minister knows that he did not put into effect that so-called urgent and necessary legislation of last year. That is the so-called legislation of which the Minister is so fond, which he is so anxious to pilot through the House. I come to another point. I should like to say a few words in regard to the shortage of European assistance on these small holdings. The Minister is a practical man. We know that. It is once and for all impossible for a plot holder to make a success of his farming without any assistance at all. I spoke to the Minister personally in regard to this matter, and he said that if 10 morgen of land was too big he would give them five morgen. How can the settler make a success of this small holding, given to him by the State if he is not allowed to have assistance. It cost the State a great deal of money. The State wants the settler to find a haven and to make a success, to become a happy and good citizen of the country. But if he is compelled to live on his own on the small holding without any assistance, what hope has he of making a success of it? This is as good as throwing away State money and all the money which has been spent on the small holdings. The settlers are forbidden to keep European bywoners or European assistants on the small holdings. They are also forbidden to retain one of their major sons on the small holding. It is true that the other children are there, but they go to school and only come home in the evenings. It is impossible for the plot owner to utilise those children, and the result is that he has to work 24 hours per day in order to get through his work. He sleeps at night alongside his water furrow. He is busy the whole day. I am speaking of something which I have seen personally, namely, that where such a lessee is alone, his wife with a child on her back, has to carry the fodder for the animals in the evening, because he is occupied at the water furrow in the land. She has to carry the fodder; she has to do the milking and all the housework in addition to that. That will be the result of this legislation. We are going to destroy not only those lessees but their families as well. The man is not always healthy. There are certain days when he cannot perform his duties.

What about the man who has no son?

He can get European assistance. It is surely practical. We know that the Minister is not always in his seat. There are certain days when he, just like anyone of us, is unable to carry out his duties. The Minister has his staff. He has his secretary and other assistants. But this man is entirely alone on the small holding, and if he cannot undertake his duties—I should like the Minister to note this—it simply means that his wife has to do all that work for him. Is that reasonable? I say, therefore, that it seems to me that here we are dealing with impracticable legislation. We do not know what the Minister’s object is in wanting to aggravate this slavery. It seems as though the. Minister bears malice. I know that in his heart he. does not bear malice, but when we look at this Bill, it seems to be the case. It is very difficult today to get European assistants. The people flock to the cities. Working on the small holdings is tantamount to slavery, and they do not want to work day and night. The only way out of the difficulty is for the man to keep a brother or perhaps one of his major sons on the farm. That is the only possibility. Now the Minister says that he is agreeable to making exceptions, and that he will consider every case on its merits. That is not right, and why should we accept such legislation? No, the Minister must be broadminded and generous. I challenge the Minister to make an experiment. He can take one of the best men in his department, give him an erf, and leave him absolutely alone to cultivate that erf, to lead the water, transport the goods, do the baling, etc., and just let him see whether one of the best men in his department can make a success of the work. The man would prove a hopeless failure, even when it is a case of only making a living on the erf. It would kill him. We no longer have coloured people on the platteland; we cannot get them, nor can we get natives. According to the law the owner of a holding has indeed the right to hire a coloured person or a native, but that is a thing of the past. That form of assistance is no longer available. In the Transvaal they have natives, and there they are perhaps in a better position than we are in the Cape. Here we are entirely dependent on the coloured people, and we no longer have them on the platteland. Consequently the only available assistance that the farmer can depend on is that of his son or of a relation. And they are not allowed to remain on the holding. Another matter I wish to touch upon is in regard to the sale of the land. Those people who have devoted their energies to the soil, who were probationary lessees and who are now deprived of the right of ownership by the Minister had no idea that such a limitation would be imposed on them, otherwise they would never have taken over these holdings. That old contract which they had gave them the assurance that one day they would be the owner of the land. If one knows that sooner or later one will be the owner of the land, then one devotes all one’s energies, and that was what these people did; and now the Minister comes along with his legislation to lay down that these people are not allowed to sell their own property. The Minister knows that when you are young, you work very hard, but the day comes when you no longer possess the energy to carry on. You give in, and you would rather sell the bit of ground on which you have worked, and use the money to begin on something else. A man becomes old and he feels that he is no longer capable of working on his holding. He has perhaps worked on that holding for 25 years; he is no longer young, and now he is bound down so that he may not sell the holding if this provision becomes law.

They are already bound.

There was never anything to the effect that they might not sell the holdings if they had paid for the land. I am talking of the Olifants River. The land at Koekenaap was bought at an average of 2s. 6d. a morgen, and the settlers paid for the erven from £400 to £900. These were erven of 10 morgen. I think that is a good price for land, especially when we remember that the State paid 2s. 6d. per morgen for this land, and the settlers had to pay £40, £50 and £60 a morgen for it. If that man has battled along and he has paid his £900, why should he be prevented from selling his own land?

What did the Government pay for that land per morgen? It cost the Government £110 per morgen.

The Government bought the land at 2s. 6d. per morgen.

It cost the Government £110 per morgen.

I think that my hon. friend is confusing the issue. Here we have not only settlements but also private owners. I am taking the case of the owner of a holding who has paid £900 for his ten morgen. I feel that he has paid honourably for that, and is it proper that the Minister should now bind him down so that he is not able to sell the land?

This Bill has nothing to do with private owners.

I am not talking about the private owners, but of the owners of holdings in the settlements of the Ministry of Lands. It appears to me to be so impracticable to restrict these people. I have in mind, for instance, municipalities who build houses that they then sell to private owners, and where the private owner has paid the purchase price he is free. That is the general practice. There has never been any other system in our country. It was always the position that if a person paid for his holding then the holding belonged to the person who had given his money for it. But now the Minister comes along with an entirely different thing, which breaks away absolutely from the traditional usage in the Union of South Africa and imposes restrictions on a property in respect of which another person has effected payment. I would not take a wife if her father said that he would retain certain jurisdiction over her. I would say, no thank you. If I buy a horse then I would not permit the previous owner to impose restrictions on how I might use that horse. I would say: “This is my property, because I paid money for it”. If the Minister is going to steer this Bill through the House then he is going to raise a violent storm amongst the owners of holdings right through the country. They are not going to submit to this. It is an unjust burden that is being placed on them. The Minister showed at the last Session that he was very concerned that a certain company had not yet given rights of ownership to the lessee. The Minister must now be logical. He was very concerned that a certain company had kept these people on a string for years and years and would not give them the right of ownership. But now it appears that the Minister wants to make a change of front, and to adopt the procedure that was followed by that company so that he can hold the settlers in his clutches for as long as they live, if I may put it that way. No, the Minister must be logical. If he condemned that practice last year, he should not now attempt to justify the same thing and do the same thing towards those who want to be free. I know that the Minister was very industrious as a young man, and that he went ahead rapidly. But hard work alone did not bring him everything he possesses today. He also made a little by speculation, and if the owner of a holding now wants to indulge in a little speculation, why not? If he has paid £900 for an erf— land has become much dearer—and he can obtain £1,500 for it today, then it is not right for the Minister to grudge him that. He knows that during his career he has himself speculated and done well out of it. There is nothing wrong in it. I have myself sold land in those parts and made a profit. It is justifiable. Why then is the Minister going to adopt this legislation to bind these settlers to their holdings until the day of their death? I know that in the Minister’s heart there is no thought of ruining these people. He means well, but as a practical man I can honestly say that I do not know how he is going to do them good in this way. I hope that the Minister will not use this legislation to deprive those people of their rights. The Minister is very concerned about returned soldiers, about providing them with holdings. That is a kind thought. We shall welcome that cordially. These are men who have fought bravely and we hope that they will also work bravely. But if the Minister accepts this amending Bill and if he allots erven to these returned soldiers on conditions such as these—that pay whatever they like for these erven they will never be able to sell them— then I am afraid that the returned soldiers will retort that they do not want these erven, and they will fling the erven back at the Minister. They will never be satisfied with that. Is this the reward that the returned soldiers are to have? Have they deserved nothing better than a little holding hedged around with these restrictions? The soldier may not have a European assistant, and if he has a son who is over 21 years of age the son will not be allowed to assist him. They will be stuck there and will not be able to get coloured people to help them. Will the soldiers be satisfied? This is not proper treatment to accord them.

Are you sorry for them?

We are only referring to a practical point. It applies not only to soldiers but also to other people. We are pointing out that the soldiers will not be satisfied with that; that they will not accept the erven under such conditions, and I say that they deserve something better. Instead of the Minister completing the existing works there, he comes along with something new. I would like to draw his attention to how the furrow along the Olifants River is overgrown. The place is under irrigation, but the settlers can obtain hardly any water. Their crops are withering because the furrow is overgrown. They have to plant and replant and to sow twice. There is no assistance available to clean out the furrow. Let the Minister complete the works that have already been started up. This is a scheme that provides the whole of Cape Town with milk and vegetables and other things and the people are struggling with the drought and are suffering losses on account of the shortage of water. The height of the dam wall must be increased. Three years ago the Minister promised this. The furrows were half finished when he dropped them and began on something new. It is a hopeless business. As regards the expropriation of land under Clause 4, this on the surface is a small thing, but there is a big danger. I speak subject to correction, but it appears to me that it is the Minister’s intention to expropriate land that falls under such a scheme and for which there is no water available—the Minister will not make any more water available. The people are stuck there with surplus land for which there is no water. The Minister can repudiate this. He can correct me, but it appears to me that, it is his intention to expropriate the surplus land for which there is no water. If that is his object then it will be an injustice towards private owners. The Minister withholds water from the people and under the Bill he will have the right to expropriate the land that is without water. Then he can obtain water for the land and give the land to other people. That is the danger. If the Bill is accepted he can make it apply to that land that is lying idle and he can also expropriate it, because at the moment this valuable land is lying idle because the people are not able to obtain water. Some of the people have taken water for all their land but others have not. It is only proper that the Minister should help those who have no water. Let them have more water and pay rates for it. Then money would come into these enterprises. The expropriation provision may also possibly be of application to the Vioolsdrift scheme. At the moment the owners of holdings have documents in their possession to the effect that the land has been granted to them as owners so long as they pay the requisite dues. If this Bill does not apply to them I shall feel a little more satisfied. But if the object of the Bill is to expropriate this group of people it will be a screaming injustice. Those 100 settlers have made their own road to the settlement and paths along the river, and the Government has granted them only £70 for the levelling of their erven. That part of the Orange River is today an Eden. The farmers have put everything they knew into the job and made an Eden of the old place. It is one of the loveliest regions we have in those parts. It is encircled by arid land. On the one side you have South-West Africa, on the other side Bushmanland, and on the Vioolsdrift settlement produce is grown for the whole of that territory—vegetables, fruit and fodder. If the Minister is going to close down that scheme and expropriate it the whole district will be ruined. And what is more: I have not heard it from the Minister direct but I have heard it in a roundabout way that he is going to make this a little paradise for coloured people.

What are you driving at?

I shall be glad if that is not so. Then I shall be ready to ask the Minister’s pardon. Many of these people have been there now for 20 or 30 years. Their parents lie buried there. It is not only a lovely place, but it has sentimental ties, and to expropriate it would be an unpardonable sin. We know that there have been mistakes but not at Vioolsdrift. There have been mixed marriages between European and coloureds—

What clause are you discussing?

Clause 4. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) has himself had difficulty with the settlers, and if I visit his district I shall get into touch with them and advise them of the attitude of the hon. member. I shall be glad if the Minister will state unequivocally that there is no intention of expropriating that land. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just spoken has dealt with a number of things, but very little with the Bill that is before us. I should like to point out that the opposition to this Bill is based upon a number of entire misconceptions. Nearly all the points to which they take exception are in the existing law as introduced by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). I am only going to allude to one or two of these points to show how misleading the opposition has been. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) who spoke recently on that side of the House, actually quoted Section 98 of the original Act 8 of 1912 as if it was still the law, and he asked the Minister to tell him how that could possibly be carried out, and so on, forgetting that that section has been repealed, and that it was repealed by Section 9 of Act 46 of 1934. He read it from the Nederlands translation of the original of 1912, quite forgetting or if not, having overlooked—though he is not usually careless in this respect but he was caught napping—that he was reading a section of the Act of 1912 that was repealed in 1934 and is no longer the law. Let me say this, that the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) rightly said that it would be well for the Minister to consider the question of consolidation. But the Minister could not consolidate this legislation on the eve of an amending Bill.

But why does he not bring in an amending Bill?

The hon. member knows that the rules of Parliament, as authoritatively interpreted by our ex-Speaker, lay down that if you want to amend the law you cannot put the amendment into a consolidating measure but you must have a separate consolidating measure and a separate amending Bill. The result would have been this, that if the Minister had brought in a consolidating Bill this Session, he would also have had to come in with an amending Bill, and next year he would have had to come again for a further consolidating Bill. I agree that there should be a consolidation, but not at this stage. Next Session I hope there will be a consolidation. There have been twelve statutes amending the old Act of 1912, and there have been over 50 amendments introduced, and I agree that it is time—but not this Session because of the amending Bill—when we should consider the whole question. I should like, however, to point out this in fairness to the Minister. The hon. member for Gordonia and a number of other members said: “Look at the idea of going to the Minister cap in hand to get his consent for everything,” or “You take away the right to alienate.” I want very briefly to give the section of the Act in order to show that the law brought in by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad actually provides for that. The hon. member for Gordonia referred to the Water Court. Well, the Water Court was brought in there by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. What the Minister does here is simply to bring in a slight alteration. He did not bring in the Water Court. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad brought it in in Section 9 of the Act of 1934. If this was wrongly done, the wrong was perpetrated not by the present Minister but by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. Then again there is the allegation of autocracy—that everything is left in the hands of the Minister. I am not going to deal with this in detail, because the Minister will deal with it, but I want to refer to Section 9 of that Act No. 45 of 1937. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) waxed eloquent on the subject. He said that he was aghast at how the Minister could do such a thing, to introduce “slawemy” and so on. The hon. member is on the horns of a dilemma. Either this is “slawemy” or it is not. If it is “slawerny” let me read the section that was introduced by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad in Act No. 45 of 1937—

So it. is exactly the same. Hon. members opposite are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the hon. member for Wolmaransstad introduced slavery, or this is all moonshine. I leave it to the intelligence of the House to decide what it is. I think they will agree that it is moonshine, that it is just manufactured opposition to the Bill on grounds which will not stand at all the test of scrutiny, because all these things were in the existing law. The Minister has made certain alterations in the law, but the law dealing with settlers was introduced by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. I do not approach this on the basis that two wrongs make a right, but I say this, that hon. members ought to know when their own Minister introduced this Act …

Not our Minister.

Now they want to disown him, because this provision appeared in the Act of 1937. He was the Minister of Agriculture in the Cabinet they originally started. He has been the Minister of Agriculture for years, and he was himself the author of the laws, and he led this present attack in the name and on behalf of hon. members opposite, and when he did so they all shouted their hurrahs and huzzas. Let us be fair on these matters. I was going to refer to section 2 of a much more drastic Bill, namely 29 of 1937—and here I want to say I was in favour of that Bill. I have always been in favour of the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Bill, that where a man does not beneficially occupy land he should get out of it and make room for someone who can beneficially occupy it. But the hon. member for Wolmaransstad brought in one of the most drastic laws on the statute book with this Act No. 29 of 1937, the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms. Section 2 of this Act 29 of 1937, which was introduced when he was Minister by the hon. member who led this attack, provides that if after a report by the board the Minister is satisfied with regard to the land that it has not been properly worked by reason of the extent or nature of the land, and so on, that it is not being beneficially occupied for farming purposes, he may—

In other words, the Minister is, in the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad an absolute dictator to farmers in occupation of land which he thinks they are not making proper use of. But hon. members opposite come here and say because the Minister has taken these provisions from the earlier law, that he is treating these settlers very badly. We know that a settler must remain a settler, and that if he is given land he must use the land properly. These hon. members opposite want it both ways; they want the man to be a settler and also to allow him to be a speculator, and so they would do away with the whole object for which land settlement was introduced. The hon. member for Namaqualand also said:

You call the Minister reasonable?

I do.

I call him one of the most unreasonable Ministers; who do you call unreasonable?

I call the hon. member unreasonable.

Order, order.

I will address the Speaker. I allowed the hon. member to trap me into answering his question direct. I must say that I was surprised that the hon. member for Namaqualand actually wanted the law amended so that these people would be able to speculate with their land. He has always been against the speculator, and rightly so when speculation is introduced into land used by the State for settlement purposes.

Have you asked the settlers?

I am not a settler, but if I were a settler I would be very glad to have these powers taken away. Speculation leads to loss of the land. By making provision against speculation, the Minister is saving the land for the settler, and he is doing this to help the settler. All the rules objected to by hon. members on the other side are rules not made to keep down the settler, but to keep the settler On his holding. The proposal of hon. members opposite will help those speculators who are anxious to buy the land from the settler and thus make the settlement useless.

Have you asked the settler his opinion?

No, I would not ask the Settler his opinion on a section of that kind. We want to try to raise these people who have become settlers. If on the one hand you treat them as people who are to be specially protected on their holdings, and at the same time allow them scope for specuation, you are going to undo the very work that you want to do under our land settlement legislation. It is not an advantage to the settler to be a speculator. He should Regard the place where he is farming as a place where he should remain with his children, or if he has the money to move somewhere else, then he should leave room for another person to be rehabilitated. I say that hon. members opposite have made no case at all against the Bill. There is only one thing in respect to which I want to draw the Minister’s attention. He gave an assurance to the House which I accept 100 per cent., that it was not intended to make the Act retrospective as far as those are concerned who come under the provisions of the Act of 1934, Act No. 46, e.g., the Vaal-Hartz scheme. I was very disturbed on reading the Bill to see that as it is worded there is undoubtedly this to be said about the expropriation clause, Clause 4, that it could be interpreted by a court of law to include the abolition of existing rights. I am only referring to the maximum of 100 morgen assured under the Act of 1934. With regard to that, the Minister gave an assurance that he was not intending to abolish those rights that were established under an Act of Parliament, and under the Act of Parliament it is part of the compensation that the seller gets from the Government that he has a special provision with regard to how compensation is calculated by the Water Court, and in consideration of that special provision he gets a maximum of 100 morgen that he is allowed to select. Obviously if this right was given under this Act of 1934, it would be an injustice in 1944—after you have made a bargain with the Government—to say now that though you were given the right to be able to pick out 100 morgen, if you came under the terms of a forced sale, ’“I will take away those 100 morgen.” That would be a great injustice on the part of any Minister and something that no Parliament could agree to. I got up to ask the Minister to amend that clause in the Committee stage of the Bill so as to make it clear that it does not have that effect. We have the Minister’s assurance, but assurances made in Parliament do not bind a court of law. As the Bill stands, it certainly does not make it clear that the provision is not retrospective, and previous clauses of this Bill are definitely intended to be retrospective. There is a definite rule of the interpretation of statutes, so strongly is it felt in the law of England and this country, that the court will presume that legislation does not intend to take away existing rights unless this is clearly stated. I cannot see that it is definitely stated here that it is retrospective, but I can also say that there is nothing to show that it is not retrospective, because the words are ambiguous, and this will lead to a great deal of litigation, and as the Minister says it is his intention that it shall only apply to the future, it is quite a simple thing to put in an amendment to say that this clause only refers to transactions after the passing of the Act. The hon. Minister regards himself as the head of the family of settlers, and he is making provision for the protection of the settlers, and where he uses the language which he is using, he is not using new language, but the language which was used by his predecessor, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad.

I am afraid that this Bill will not have the desired effect. We know that in the case of illness one must start at the cause of the disease; one must not wait until the disease is there. I just want to point out that the Minister of Lands is making a mistake in this respect that he is making the present law even worse. We want people who can become landowners, who have a predilection for the land, and one can only get those persons by a process of wise selection. In the Free State we have an association which has existed for nearly ten years, where such prospective landowners are selected. Only deserving cases are selected, and it is only the person who has a special liking for the land who can make a success of farming. We feel that such an association is very important. This association in the Free State selected persons in the past who today own quite a few farms, specially in my constituency. They all made a complete success of farming. Those persons have progressed to such an extent that today more than one of them is able to buy other farms, because they were the right, persons. Since they made a success of farming, I am of opinion that this legislation will not be in the interests of the farmer who has worked himself up, and who is then not given an opportunity to become the owner of the land. Only the person who has a land hunger ought to be placed on the settlements, and we will never get that type of man once he knows that he cannot become the owner of the land. I am afraid that this legislation is going to ring the death knell of the settlements, once it is fully known that this legislation is of such a nature that they can never regard the land as their own property. It is no more than reasonable, when a person has bought the land and improved it, to allow him eventually to become the owner of that land. He ought to have the right to sell it later on together with the improvements which he brought about, if he wants to buy a bigger place in order to make a better living. He has proved that he can make a success of farming, and he should be afforded this opportunity, and the people who can make a success of farming are only those who have practical experience and who have proved that they are farmers in the right sense of the word. If we place people on settlements who have no predilection for the land, we shall have to introduce new legislation in this House every year. We must not wait until an evil manifests itself; we must try to remove that evil before it takes root. I want to make an appeal to the Minister so to alter this legislation that only the right type of person will be attracted to the settlements. The Minister must buy more land for lessees and bywoners, so that they will be in a position to become landowners. When such a settler has built up his land, he has some times put more money into it than the original purchase price, and it is surely unreasonable, when he can get a better, price, to prevent him from selling his farm. If at a later date he has to sell the land subject to the same servitudes, we know that he will get very much less for the land. I want to make an appeal to the Minister seriously to consider this matter, and to see whether he cannot rectify the existing defect in the law, and open the door so that the right type of settler will be attracted. Anyone who is not likely to make a success of farming should not be attracted. I hope the Minister will give his attention to this.

I think that this Bill is. in the interests of the settlers and of the State. My sympathies are with the man who is under this misapprehension, who belieyed that eventually the small holding would become his property. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible for him to meet those people, who labour under that misapprehension, by giving them this right, in case they want to sell their small holdings in the future, that the State will in the first instance buy those small holdings from them. I should like to see the State buy these small holdings arid not speculators. They must remain in the hands of the State. If the Minister can do it in such a way thaţ the State has the right to take over these small holdings from the people concerned, the matter would be rectified. That is all I want to suggest.

I should like to tell the hon. the Minister of Lands that a dictatorship is a very good thing, but it must be a success, otherwise it may be a great menace; to the country. With the passage Of this Bill I have found these words used : “The Minister can determine conditions; the Minister gives written notice; the Minister must always have the last word?’ To my mind that is a little autocratic. We know the Minister who now holds the portfolio. He is probably a Very good Minister, but we do not know what his successor is going to be like. We know that the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) is very interested in this matter, and. we know that he has 3,000 coloured votes behind him. May he not want to come into the holdings with his coloured! people? I say that this question of a dictatorship is very dangerous. Cannot we achieve what the Minister has in mind by some other means? We know that what he contemplates is that the settlement will not degenerate into a place that is open to all, irrespective of colour. But we do not know what the Minister who succeeds him will do. We may perhaps have a Minister who is not so opposed to the penetration of Indians and a number of Indians may be placed on the holdings. Take for instance the Minister of Finance. He has already threatened to resign because he could not agree with the Government over their Indian policy. He is not so averse to the penetration of Indians. We know that he also has aspirations for the premiership.

That has nothing to do with the question before the House.

I want to point out that in the future the question of the penetration of Indians into the holdings may come up for discussion.

Groups of them are already there.

I only want to show what may happen. We may get all sorts of strange elements into it. We have seen that the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) is very interested in the question. Will he not perhaps try to bring in refugees from Europe. It is going to create a dangerous position if we get a Minister who does not regard the holdings as a place for a European community, or that it should remain a Christian community. We are anxious that the settlement should be retained as it is today, a Christian community. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if it would not be better to appoint a committee from the owners of the holdings who are now there, together with himself, or the Land Board, so that we may in this manner have a more democratic body. I do not want to cast any reflections on the present Minister, but we do not know who his successor is going to be. I want to refer to just a few other small points. I see that things are moving more and more in the direction that the owners of holdings will have to remain on their holdings for eleven months in the year instead of eight as hitherto. A person may fall ill and it may happen that in this way he will lose his holding. He is only allowed to be away from his holding for one month in the year. Take the case of a returned soldier. Very probably he will be receiving treatment, and it will not be possible for him to remain on the holding for eleven months in the year. I should very much like the Minister to direct his attention to this. Then there is another question. Formerly the man was allowed six months in which to occupy the holding, and now he has only three months. The Government is not very strict on the question of time. There are hundreds of holdings which for months and years have not been tenanted, and now we have a strict regulation that the owners must occupy the holdings as soon as possible. The whole Bill appears to us to be very drastic, and entirely too autocratic. I should like to bring another point to the attention of the Minister. Cannot the owner be permitted to allow his parents to remain on the holding when they are people fairly advanced in age? I know personally of a case at Vaal-Hartz, where a young man has not been allowed to let his parents remain on the holding. We know that it is a Christian tradition of the people that the younger generation should help their parents in their old age. I do not think that there is any danger in this. I would very much like to know whether the parents may not be permitted to remain on the holdings. The old people would, of course, not be there permanently, and they would be able to help their son in various directions. The mother, for instance would look after the small children, and the father could perhaps supervise the servants. I should be glad if the Minister will take this into consideration. Now I come to another question. I have not much authority for this, but I wish to refer to Ganspan. I have been informed that disabled soldiers have been sent there, that 40 disabled soldiers were sent there and that at the moment only a few remain. I understood that it was a question of labour shortage. Would it not be possible in such cases to allow the soldier to have his father or his son with him on the holding; he is physically unfit, and with the help of his father or his son he may perhaps be able to make a success of the holding. Then I reach my last point. I should like to know what policy the Minister is going to follow in connection with the opening up of factories and shops. Is this going to be left to private initiative.

You must bring up that matter on the estimates; it has nothing to do with this Bill at all.

I take it that it does not fall under this.

No, you must rather discuss it under the estimates.

In conclusion I would just like to say this. I know that the Minister of Lands has just as fine intentions as any of us, but I should like to have the assurance that under another Minister we shall not be faced with this danger. For instance, we find today that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is very well disposed towards the Indians. I may also mention the Minister of Social Welfare, who remarked in a statement made in Johannesburg that he was in favour of Europeans and non-Europeans playing together on the same sports ground. These are all instances that indicate to us that Ministers can have different opinions, and possibly the successor to the present Ministry will look at this matter in an entirely different light.

I am sorry to have to say that I am also opposed to this Bill being made retrospective. I should like to ask the Minister what the position is in connection with mineral rights on settlements. Certain people have leases and others have not; they have not had the opportunity to take out written leases. Certain rights are now being taken away from those people who have not yet paid for their lands. Now we are going to have two sections of people on the same lands. I should like to have the position clarified by the Minister in regard to the prospecting rights that the settlers at present enjoy over their lands. When it comes to a question of the purchasing of these lands, in the event of the mineral rights being bought, what will the settlers’ position be? I should like to have an assurance that these people are protected in regard to the privileges that they have hitherto enjoyed. Then I turn to another small point. I admit that it was a principle that was brought in by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) when he was Minister of Lands. I refer to the question of a son who must have the consent of the Minister if he wants to remain on the settlement. If the Minister is not in favour of adopting another procedure then I would make the suggestion that it would be a good idea that the onus of the son not being allowed to remain there rest on the department and not on the parent. Why should this right of a citizen be taken away unless it can be proved that he should not keep his son there? If the Land Board or the department can show that it is not economical, then and then only should the department have the right to send the man away. The owner must be allowed to have the ordinary civic right to keep his son there so long as he desires. I want to put it this way. If the Minister does not want to accede to this request, can he not simplify the existing machinery so that one will not have to wait for a period of three or six months while the Land Board is obtaining the requisite information. I assume that the Minister is following the advice of the Board’s inspectors. The inspector has to go to the settlement to obtain the information. Frequently he does not know these people. At the settlement he often obtains unfavourable reports regarding the person concerned from others who are not well disposed towards him. The Minister will readily see the danger that is inherent in this procedure. I am in agreement with the other principles which are contained in this Bill regarding the Government’s share in the matter. It is intended with a view to helping these people, and we must not allow the feelings of the people to be played on.

I want to associate myself with this side of the House and I want to lodge my emphatic protest against, this Bill, particularly in regard to those two principles. Not only are dictatorial powers being given to the Minister but if we study the position carefully the principle which is being introduced in this Bill is in actual fact nothing but a Fascist principle.

That is a fact.

And the Fascists are on the other side of the House.

There is no doubt that this Bill will not only cause a great deal of dissatisfaction among the settlers, but it will at the same time be a disappointment to those who take an interest in settlement. Settlements have a threefold object. The principal object is that of rehabilitation. Surely we must all assume that the people who go on to those settlements in the main are people who land there as a result of economic pressure, people who perhaps have been unable to keep pace with the rapid changes in economic conditions? Those people are given the opportunity here of getting their heads above water again. The settlements merely constitute a bridge to them to enable them to carry on in life; that is the main object of settlements, and any principle which violates that ideal must detrimentally affect the settlements. Everything possible must be done to encourage that principle. No obstacle must be placed in the way of the settlers in their efforts to rehabilitate themselves. But the second object of the settlements, and this is a most important matter, is an educational one. People are taught there to be independent, and if we study this Bill any educationalist will tell us that it is a violation of the most elementary principles of education. Here, where the settler from the very start is told that he has to follow the lead and hold on to the lead given by the Government, the ideal of independence will not be promoted. The Government will be breeding spiritual slavery. There is a further danger I see in this clause, and that is that an inferiority complex will be created in those people from the very start. A class distinction will be created. These men, who by the grace of the Government, are allowed their freedom and the free use of these holdings are given a chance, but there is another class of person who feels there is no chance for him. That is one of the things that must be put right. We must assist those people to recover their balance. We must release them from this inferiority complex which they have acquired over the course of years. That is one of the great objects of settlements, but the Government by this Bill is not assisting towards achieving that object. On the contrary, this Bill will achieve the very opposite of what the settlement policy aims at. The third object of our settlement policy is to assure people of a livelihood. I want to associate myself with a few other ideas which have been voiced here in regard to young men being removed from their parent’s holdings. Many cases have been brought to my notice at Brits and other places where young fellows have been told to leave the holding. By attacking the family life we interfere with one of the most tender things in the life of the Afrikaner. Even if a child gets married he is still a child of his family, and that is why we should be careful with this policy. We have had many examples at Brits and other settlements to show that these young fellows were the only help the aged parents had, the only people who could look after their aged parents. When the young men had to leave the farm there was nobody left to look after the aged parents. I trust the Minister will give this matter his serious consideration. I want to add this: We should remember that the Afrikaner highly appreciates his freedom, and any Bill which interferes with the natural freedom of the Afrikaner touches the tender strings of his soul. We have no doubt that this Bill will cause considerable dissatisfaction among the settlers. I hope the Minister will carry out. these important principles which affect our settlements.

I had not intended speaking on this Bill, and I want to assure the Minister that wherever he has re-organised settlements in my constituency we are very grateful for what he has done, there are parts where he has placed the settlers on a very sound basis. It is for that very reason that I feel today I would be failing in my duty if I did not say a few words on behalf of those settlers. I want to associate myself fully with what the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) said, namely that one of our main objects is to put those people who have gone back on their feet again so that they may become independent once more in days to come. Even the present law, and this Bill now before the House, may have a discouraging effect on these people. I want to mention an instance to the Minister in connection with which I received a letter a few days ago. The person concerned is a settler on the settlement I have spoken about, and he made such progress that eventually he succeeded in getting Crown Land Title. He has his Crown Land Title but that title comes under the law which prevents him from selling the land without the Minister’s consent. That is the existing law, that position is being perpetuated in this Bill. I want to read this letter to show the Minister what the feeling of settlers who have made progress is—settlers who only want a little more encouragement to become entirely independent so that they will be able to stand on their own feet. This man writes that he has got his Crown Land Title, but now he finds that it contains a provision under which he is not allowed to sell the land and this is what he writes—, Please do your best for me. I have no intention of speculating; you know that. I would rather buy more land but it must be my own land, to do with as I please. I did not even reply to that letter. I am so disappointed with these people. I almost wish I had never heard of the Department of Lands. It reminds me of Jacob who worked for seven years to get Rachel and then in the end he was tricked.

And then he goes on—

That is one instance. I have had two such cases lately of people who had secured Crown Land Title; and if those people were only given a little more encouragement they would do very well and become entirely independent.

You mean that they can sell their land at a very high price.

No, they don’t want to do that, they would sooner buy more land. But that man wants that right; he wants to feel that the land is his own after having worked hard for it all these years, after having saved his money and having paid for it. This man also says in his letter that on two occasions debts on the land have been written off, but that he is quite willing to pay back the amounts written off if the land can eventually become his own. That shows the Minister what that man’s object is. If the Minister has had no experience of that type of man himself then I know the Government have had experience of some of these big settlers whom we have had in some parts of the country. We have had experience of the settlers on the Sundays River—people who were imported to be settled there. I know of a similar case in my own constituency. Nearly all those people have left today; they were not meant to be settlers, but in these cases which I have mentioned we were dealing with people who were put on the land and who were real settlers. They proved themselves to be people who could make a success of the enterprise with a little encouragement. The Minister has told us that he does not want the children to stay on te settlements. They are given an opportunity of becoming educated, they can learn and go to work somewhere else. I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, that the education they get is in the primary schools where the children cannot go beyond standard VI. The parents cannot afford to send their children away. We often assist them to send their children to secondary schools, but that cannot be done in every case, and it therefore means that those children can only go as far as Standard VI and no further.

That is not so.

Perhaps the Minister can tell us where there are secondary schools on the settlements.

At Vaal Hartz there is a good high school.

But not all the settlers are on the Vaal-Hartz scheme.

One also has similar schools elsewhere. For instance, on the Sundays River.

But there are other settlements where there are no such schools.

Where?

On the Great Fish River, for instance; there is only a primary school there.

But surely they are close to the good schools at Cradock.

Yes, but that means that they have to send their children there, and they have to pay for their board and lodging; they cannot afford that because in very many cases the parents are poor. I want to make an appeal to the Minister. If he wants to carry on with this Bill, let him submit the conditions to the people concerned so that those who buy in future will know what the conditions are on which they are buying. They will then know what they are doing, but don’t make this Bill retrospective. These people have bought their land on certain conditions. They have worked hard, and we have encouraged them to work there, and we should not impose these conditions on them for ever and a day. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to amend the Bill in that respect if he insists on proceeding with it.

I want to associate myself with what is being said by hon. members on this side of the House, and with the objections they have raised against this amending Bill of the Minister of Lands. I think that now that the Minister has heard all the objections from all sides—not only from this side of the House but also from his own side—he will have to think very hard, and I hope he will be prepared so to amend the Bill that it will be acceptable to the House and the country. It is quite wrong to accept a Bill of this kind, which is retrospective in its effect. The people who have bought this land under the Land Board or otherwise, must surely have thought that they would one day become the lawful owners of that land, and if they are now to be told that they will never be allowed to do as they please with the land it will have a demoralising effect on them, and they will not be prepared to continue improving their lands. The Minister is taking a wrong step, and I want to express the hope that he will consider the objections raised by this side of the House. When I visited Lichtenburg recently I received a number of letters from settlers in which they were informed that their grown-up sons had to leave. It is a very bad thing to make these young fellows, even if they are more than 21 years of age, leave the farms. It has a very bad effect on the Afrikaner. It is much better that these young fellows can stay there, they can help their fathers on the farms; but as soon as they reach the age of 21 they have to go.

Do they wean their children so late in those parts of the country?

Apparently the hon. member has not yet been weaned. If the Minister allows the Bill to pass in its present form, he will create a lot of dissatisfaction because he is really doing an injustice to these people who have bought the land on specific conditions. If they are given Crown Land Title, they are entitled to take transfer and to allow their major sons to stay on the farms. But that is no longer the position today. If the Minister puts this Bill through they will no longer have that right. I think the Minister is taking a very bad step and I want to protest most strongly against it. I also want to express the hope that the Minister will introduce this amendment. I have noticed that there are members opposite— even the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) and the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. van der Merwe) who object to this Bill having retrospective forcé. As they realise that is a mistake I hope when it comes to a vote they will not vote on the Minister’s side, but that they will vote with us, because what is the use of getting up here and bringing objections to the Minister’s notice, if when it comes to giving effect to their objections they refuse to vote for the Bill? That is the wrong attitude to adopt. If we are opposed to a Bill we should show our objection by voting against it. I again want to put a request to the Minister. I know that he is sympathetically disposed towards the settlers, and I want to express the hope that he will not push through this clause making the Bill retrospective, because it will be the wrong thing to do. Further more, I want him to allow the settlers who have Crown Land Title to have the right to keep their major sons on the farms.

At the outset I want to congratulate the Minister most heartily on this piece of progressive legislation. I am looking forward to the day when no one in South Africa will have the right to barter his land arbitrarily. I notice that the Opposition is fighting this Bill tooth and nail; tears have been shed about Fascist legislation and so on. Hon. members over there are crying about the clauses contained in this Bill and about the scarcity of the labour on the farms. Now let me say this, that those people themselves are responsible for the scarcity of labour—I mean the big land barons are responsible. After the Anglo-Boer War the “joiner,” the “hands-uppers,” the “freebooters,” and the members of the “Komberskommando”—and many of their descendants are in this House—started exploiting the children of those people who had laid down their lives for the two South African Republics. They drove those people off the farms, with the result that they had to try and make a living in the towns. One source of labour was lost to the platteland in that way, but it did not stop at that. The exploitation went further, with the result that the majority of the coloured population is also in the towns today, and now these people are busy driving the natives to the towns. I can see that members on this side of the House are anxious to get the settlers back to the land so that they may live on the farms as bywoners and be told how to vote. That is their policy—that is how they have worked it out in theory, and now they want to put their theory into practice. The poor must be on the farms to serve there as voting cattle, while the rich can become Ministers, Members of Parliament, and Members of other Boards, but these other, people have to return to the land as bywoners, so that the land barons can dictate to them. Now, let me deal with the point that young fellows over the age of twenty-one are no longer to be allowed to live on the farms belonging to their fathers. I interrupted an hon. member and asked whether the children on the settlements were weaned so late in life. I hope that is not so, because if it is I should be sorry for the mothers, but a young fellow who has to work for his father under conditions such as those quoted here—conditions under which nobody else can make a living—is simply being exploited by his father, and I welcome the Minister’s proposal to rescue those young fellows from their own fathers. In any case a young fellow Who at the age of 21 years cannot stand on his own feet is no use.

What about those cases where the father is too old to work himself?

There the son can take over the farm, and the father can stay with him.

The father is not allowed to stay with him.

I fail to see why hon. members over there are so concerned about these young men. They say that the Jews are the exploiters, but we find that David’s son has blessed this Bill in this House. I want to say I do not believe that Providence has created the soil of South Africa for a few rich people; I believe the soil is there for the whole of the population of South Africa. The more that soil can be divided into small holdings for all those who have been driven away from mother earth by the exploiters, so that everyone can get his acre of ground, the better it will be for our country and our people.

The hon. member who has just sat down said that he wanted to save the son from the father. There is no need to comment on what the hon. member has said, but the people on the settlements will give their comment when they read his speech in Hansard, and see what he has had to say. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) reminded me of a naughty boy. If a boy does something wrong, and is reprimanded, he usually says: “I did not do it, Piet did it”. And when we draw attention to mistakes in the Bill the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) says: “Yes, but the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) did this or that”; that is no argument. The question here is not who has done this or who has done that; we are considering this Bill and we want concrete proof against our arguments. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) said that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad had also introduced legislation of a similar kind. That is not so, because the Minister of Lands goes very much further than the hon. member for Wolmaransstad did. The Bill which he is now asking the House to pass refers to the second and third transaction, while the legislation passed in the days of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad only dealt with the first transfer. That criticism of the hon. member does not hold water. The Minister of Lands comes here and takes credit for what others have done. We have heard all about the Minister of Lands going through the country and talking about the big irrigation works on which he is working, but those irrigation schemes are only on paper so far. Judging from what the Minister of Lands has been saying one would have imagined that the people living in the Karroo and in other parts of the country too, were almost getting drowned by now as a result of the multitude of storage dams that are being constructed, but we have seen nothing of these schemes yet. And all the Minister has produced so far is this amending Bill. I think it would have been more to his credit if he had introduced legislation for big irrigation schemes which would have resulted in large settlements being established. It appears to me however that this Bill is so narrow in its conception and is so detrimental to the settlers that. we have really got to the stage now that the Minister should consider using these holdings only for the purpose of training men as settlers, so that after they have had their training there and have got some capital together they can be placed on other schemes. We might possibly make provision to have other schemes—“Scheme 12” or “Scheme 13” to enable these men to go from the one scheme to the other, because under the conditions which the Minister is now trying to lay down the settlers will remain bywoners for ever. It was said here that the Minister is a dictator. We are told that we are fighting for democracy, but the attitude adopted by the Minister certainly does not savour of democracy. If the Minister of Lands had lived in a country under a dictatorship he might perhaps have been an aspirant dictator today. We don’t know whether he would ever have achieved his aims, but the attitude he is now adopting certainly does not become a Minister of Lands. It seems that his attitude is infectious. We now find that servitudes are imposed on those holdings, and immediately that happens the value of a holding drops. There is no doubt about that. People are put on these holdings; the man has perhaps saved a little money and when he has rehabilitated himself he has to ask the Minister for permission to sell a piece of his land. No buyer is going to pay the full value of the land if he knows that there is a servitude on the land which only allows him to sell with the Minister’s consent. It simply means, that the owner will never get full value for his land. A servitude immediately causes the value of a holding to drop, and where a man might perhaps have got thousands of pounds for his land he is now only going to get hundreds of pounds. If that is to be the position, how is that man ever going to manage to get from such a holding to some outside place, how is he ever going to buy land under another clause of the Act, or buy land on his own initiative? Now I want to refer to clause 2 (b) which provides that sons who have the age of 21 must leave the allotments. I should like to know from the Minister how these young fellows, who have to leave the allotments when they are twenty-one years of age, can possibly be expected to retain their love for that bit of land? The young man has been working on that land and then he is forced to leave.

What would the position be if there were three sons?

The law says that not even one son is to be allowed to stay on the farm.

But what would the position be if there are three?

Then let the Minister say clearly that one son will be entitled to stay there. The Minister will perhaps tell us now that he will allow one son to remain. We don’t know what his intentions are.

He chases them all away.

Yes, I understand that that is what he is doing, and even if he is not doing it, he may perhaps do so at some future time. The object, of this Bill is to prevent speculation and to prevent companies from getting hold of the land. We on this side of the House feel strongly on this point, but if the Bill stipulates that no man will be allowed to have more than one allotment or one holding, the effect will be that all these big companies will be cut out. But if this Bill is applied strictly, the owner will be very detrimentally affected. The Minister as a farmer knows perfectly well that it is getting more and more difficult to keep the young fellows on the land, because the towns are attracting them all the while. And now the young fellow who afterwards will inherit the land is to be driven off his father’s allotment. How is that young man, if he has lived in a town for years, going to give up town life again? Can anyone expect him to return to the farm where he has to work very hard? Once a man loses his love for farm life, he will never get it back, and we are afraid that the Minister will not be successful in getting these people back on the land again, because if the young fellow has not got a deep rooted love for the soil he will never go back there. That love can only be ingrained in him if he has grown up on the land, if he has enjoyed the bitter and the sweet of the farm, and has suffered the hardships of farm life, if he has made profits there, and if he has seen what he can achieve by his own handiwork. Sowing and ploughing have to be done on those farms, and any farmer knows that it is quite impossible for one man to do it all on his own. No man can inspan his plough without labour, and a lot of ploughing and sowing has to be done. The farmer has to load up his wheat or his mealies with his own hands. So I come back to this point and I ask: Why must a young fellow be taken off the farm and prevented from helping his father? We as farmers know that farm labour is very scarce and the farmer’s natural helper is his son— the boy who one day will inherit the land, and that son is now to be driven away. We feel that this is absolutely wrong. In Clause 4 (b) we find that when land is proclaimed the Minister may allot the owner any holding, either on that area or elsewhere. We realise that circumstances may arise when the Minister has to intervene, but we know that the owner of such a farm has an affection for his soil, and as a rule that affection is centred round the homestead and the yard. That is where he has been working, and I want to ask whether it is not possible to insert some clause giving the owner the right to retain his homestead. Surely he would much sooner retain his homestead than any other part of the farm? I again want ro emphasise that the farmer loves his farm, he loves all the soil, but his main affection is centred in his homestead and his yard. We find in Clause 2 (a) that a man will be regarded as domiciled on a holding if he is there for eleven months in the year. Now, I should like to know from the Minister when a son is considered to be domiciled on the holding. Assuming he is there for ten months and twenty days, he lives there with his father, and he goes away on a holiday for a little over a month, will he then be allowed to stay there even though he is over 21 years of age? Does this clause also apply to the sons because if that is so, the son will be allowed to stay there for ten months and twenty-nine days. I also want to refer to Clause 7 (a) in which it is said that the Government reserves the right to expropriate certain lands, but native areas are excluded. We feel that a native area should not stand in the way of our national welfare. Even if an area belongs to the native the Minister should still have the right to build canals to go through that area, and I think the Minister should give us a little more information on this point, and tell us whether he is going to take power, even to have canals built through native areas? In Clause 4 we find that notice is to be given in writing when the Minister wants to expropriate land. I think the word “registered notice” should be inserted there. Letters are often lost in the post, and I feel that the word ’’registered” might well be inserted here. Under this Bill the rights of individuals are encroached upon and I again want to appeal to the Minister to review the whole position, and I particularly ask him to drop the clause dealing with expropriation.

I wish to refer to a few points which have already been discussed on this subject of settlers. We feel this Bill is going to put us in a difficult position. There is no one who will not be affected by the Bill. If a man isn’t a settler himself he has friends or relatives who will come under this Bill, and the rights of individuals are being encroached upon. We therefore want to appeal to the Minister not to proceed with this measure. In his speech the Minister said he had advised the settlers to keep their children away from their allotments so that they could go and look for work elsewhere. The Minister knows that parents who are settlers can only get their children educated up to Standard VI, they cannot afford to pay for any higher education. When a child has passed Standard VI he is still in a hopeless position so far as his future is concerned. That is why we should like to see this Bill amended so that a child may become the heir of the land held by his father. When the father is old and can no longer work he finds it difficult to get any assistance from outside, because labour conditions, particularly in Marico and those parts of the country, are extremely precarious, and the father should then be entitled to get his son to help him. There is no native labour available to do the work, and the father is left to his own devices when he gets old and decrepit. He cannot carry on with his work. Why should not the parent be allowed in those circumstances to get his son to work with him on his farm? I know of a case where an old man had two grown-up sons, and they had to leave the farm. The old man could not get any help and he was forced to give up his holding. That family is in a town today, they had to leave the farm. I also want to appeal to the Minister to amend this Bill in such a way that a farmer can one day become the owner of the land. They work these places, they cultivate the land, they pay for the land, but they can never own the land. I don’t think any person will buy land under Section 11—at least not the right type of person. But surely the Minister wants to keep people on the land? Why is he making it impossible? If a man can make a living there it is all for the good of the country. Give him a chance to become the owner of the land. These settlers are hard-working men. I quite agree that, as the Minister tells us, some of them do not want to work as they should and do not want to produce anything, but most of them do their utmost and try to get ahead. I think anyone who has had practical experience of farming will agree that we should give those people the opportunity of one day becoming owners of the land they work. The Minister is always telling us that he wants to help those people. We assume the Minister is considerate and wants to do the best he can for those people, but he will not always be Minister of Lands. I therefore make an appeal to the Minister, and I ask him to so amend this Bill that nothing will stand in the way of these people becoming the owners of the land.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 8th March.