I want to move the following amendment to the motion of the Minister of Transport for the second reading of the Part Appropriation Bill—

1. (a) the promotion since 1939 of officials in the Railway service to senior posts;
2. (b) the misuse made of Railway workshops in aid of the funds of the Cavalcade and Navy Week and the neglect in consequence of essential Railway work;
3. (c) to what extent Railway material, without being paid for, was used for the manufacture of goods for Navy Week;
4. (d) the work done by Railway officials whilst on duty for the Cavalcade and Navy Week and the booking of such time against other works orders; and
5. (e) to what extent the special tax of 15 per cent. imposed by the Minister of Finance and the rebates allowed to the Defence Department and other governments are in conflict with the principles of Railway management laid down in the South Africa Act”.

The Minister of Transport today finds himself in a very unenviable position. He had a number of years of extraordinary surpluses. His income rose by millions and millions of pounds. Where Railway income formerly was as low as £24,000,000 it rose to over £50,000,000 per annum, and during that time large profits were made year after year. A second privilege the Minister had was that when he took over in 1939 the Railways were well supplied with rolling stock. Large contracts had been entered into overseas for the delivery of railway trucks and carriages and these things all arrived. He had new locomotives and started off in 1939 with large supplies or rolling stock. Times were favourable and he had millions and millions in surpluses. In spite of that we find that the Minister has today proceeded to tax the users of the Railways more, by raising the tariffs. The Constitution lays down that the Railway Administration must build up a reserve fund to enable it in times of diminished income to cover shortages instead of resorting to increased tariffs. The question which arises is what the Minister of Railways has done all these years with the millions and millions of surpluses, the millions of pounds of railway earnings which he spent. What has he done with the money? He spent that money in an extravagant manner. And now that Railway earnings have reached a high-water mark and are diminishing and shortages are coming about he at once resorts to raising the tariffs. The Minister will say that he raised the tariffs because he improved the conditions of the officials and increased their salaries. If the Minister is going to use that argument, we will deal with it at the third reading. I just want to say that the Administration for years has been adopting the standpoint before the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours that the tariff fund can be used for increasing wages or keeping them constant, and also for maintaining tariffs. That is the standpoint adopted by the Administration. It is no excuse for the Minister to say that the reserve fund he has built up is not strong enough to be used in order to prevent an increase in tariffs. We on this side of the House warned the Minister every year that he should not be so wasteful with Railway earnings. He should use the money to strengthen his reserve fund, so that when he gets reverses he will be able to use the fund to cover shortages, and will not be obliged to cut salaries and increase tariffs. We stressed this repeatedly. What was the reaction of the Minister of Railways? He stigmatised it as being panicky and represented us as being a lot of pessimists, and he said that he did not take the least notice of it. He said that a tariff fund of £10,000,000 was sufficient and that it was unnecessary to build up a fund of £20,000,000. He did not take the least notice of our suggestions. He said they were the suggestions of people in a panic. But to our great surprise the Minister of Railways last year told us what other countries had done in strenghthening their reserve funds in good times in order to be able to stand the reactions of shortages, and then he said that if he had followed the example of other countries he would have had a reserve fund not of £10,000,000 but of more than £20,000,000. That is precisely what we pleaded for all these years, but now in 1944 he confesses that it would have been a wise policy to build up a reserve fund of £20,000,000. The example of other countries brought him to a realisation of the position, and he saw that he had neglected his duty all these years, that he should have followed our suggestions and that he should not have called us the creators of panic, but should have listened to our forceful pleas. When he saw what Rhodesia and other countries were doing he woke up. It was too late then. The time of surpluses from which he could have built up the reserve fund, was passed. Too late he discovered that he had failed in that respect, that he had neglected his duty. I hope in a moment to make a few suggestions and I hope that the Minister will now accept them and not again call them panicky suggestions. The Minister has raised railway tariffs by 10 per cent., notwithstanding the fact that for all these years he has been wasting railway income on a colossal scale. A few years ago he made a speech in this House and told us that a rebate of 33⅓ per cent. was being given to the Department of Defence, and he then said that the railways were losing thousands of pounds through that and that the work was being done at a loss, but immediately after that he proceeded to raise the rebate from 33 per cent. to 50 per cent. In other words, he increased the losses to the railways in transporting the goods. The Constitution is very clear on the point. It determines that the Minister of Railways or the Railway Administration has the right in only two cases to transport goods on which it makes a loss and to transport goods gratis. The one is when the Governor-General-in-Council decides to ask the Minister of Railways and the Railway Administration to do so, and the second is when both Houses of Parliament decide to ask the Railway Administration to transport goods at a tariff which produces a loss. These are the only two ways in which the law provides that the Railway Administration can transport goods at a loss or gratis. I now want to ask the Minister who directed this request to him? Parliament did not do it. Did the Governor-General-in-Council direct a request to the Railway Administration to transport goods at a rebate of 50 per cent., resulting in a tremendous loss to the railways, according to the Minister’s own statement? Did the Governor-General-in-Council do so? Perhaps the Minister will reply to that. For the rest I want to draw attention to Article 131 which says that if the Railway Administration does something like that, transporting goods at a loss, it must at the first Session of Parliament thereafter lay an audited statement before the House to show what its losses were, and then the Consolidated Revenue Fund must compensate for the losses. Has that been done? The Minister never came to this House with an audited statement to show what the losses are in connection with goods transported for the Department of Defence, and the railways are themselves bearing the loss. What was the attitude of the Minister of Railways? When in 1939 he had not yet become the Minister the Government of the day decided to grant a rebate to farmers to help the farming community. It would have meant a loss to the railways, or rather a reduction of £1,200,000, and the Government said: “Treasury will pay £800,000 and the railways will pay the other £400,000,” and the Minister of Railways, who was then an ordinary member of Parliament, rose in this House and said: I represent the Rand and I represent industries; I represent commerce and I object to this loss being placed upon the railways. I speak on behalf of a large portion of the users of the railways. I object to the railways contributing £400,000. He said that he objected to the users of the railways being selected to contribute their share twice. He pointed out that these users first contribute their portion towards the £800,000, and then they are specially selected also to contribute towards the £400,000. He used strong language, and that in spite of the fact that the Constitution lays down that the railways must fix their tariffs specially with an eye to the development of the agricultural industry. It was specially provided that the railways must contribute to the development of the country. The Minister then strongly protested at the users of the railways being taxed double. Today that same Minister permits £3,300,000 to be placed on the users, which is the loss which the railways suffer on the transportation of goods for the Department of Defence. What is the point of view of the Minister now? Was he right in 1939 or is he right now? It will be interesting to know what standpoint the Minister is adopting in regard to the matter. But that is not the only thing. There are other examples of the waste of income of the railways on a large scale. Take one example. To the Cavalcade at Port Elizabeth the railways presented £500. For that a special letter of authorisation was obtained from the Governor-General-in-Council. But immediately afterwards another thousand pounds was given and the Auditor-General had to report that the Minister did not even ask for a special letter of authorisation for that £1,000. He acted on his own responsibility. Money was spent on Cavalcades at Cape Town, Bloemfontein and elsewhere. Railway funds were used in the same wasteful manner, notwithstanding that he must have realised that a reaction would come and that there was a danger of future shortages. We had that position before. For example in 1930 to 1931. The Minister had the best opportunities for using his large income to strengthen his Tariff Fund to such an extent that it would not be necessary to raise tariffs. But the most unreasonable step taken by the present Minister of Railways and Harbours is that he has proceeded to give a rebate of 33⅓ per cent. to people in Elizabethville in the Belgian Congo and to people in other parts of Central Africa, and I should like to ask what right the Minister had to give such a rebate to people in the Belgian Congo and elsewhere while he himself stated that a rebate of 33⅓ per cent. meant a tremendous loss to the railways. The Minister must now tax the farmers in our country by 10 per cent., but the farmers in the Belgian Congo and the rest of Central Africa receive a rebate of 334 per cent. Where does he get the right to do this? The constitution very clearly says that if he loses on transport a Parliamentary Report must be submitted and the loss, if it was incurred at the behest of the Government, must be borne by the Consolidated Revenue Fund. But here the Minister on his own responsibility grants the farmers in Central Africa a rebate. I ask farming members on the Government side whether they approve of the Minister granting farmers there a rebate of 33⅓ per cent., on which he makes a loss, while our own farmers must pay 10 per cent. more in rail fares and tariffs. Can they approve of that?

That is on all traffic, including passenger traffic.

Yes, and when we as Nationalists point to these things we are told that we are bigoted and narrow and incapable of looking further than the boundaries of South Africa. Well, if it is bigoted and narrow to see to the interests of our own nation, I prefer to be bigoted. The actions of the Minister are not just to our nation. I want to turn to another matter to which I specially want to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways. In South Africa we have built up a railway service of which we can be proud. There are almost 140,000 people in the service of the railways, and that service has in the course of years evolved a tradition through its devoted service, honesty and application to duty. By those means a tradition was created of which the Minister and each of us in this House may be proud. But we now find that that morale in the service is being undermined, namely by certain high officials who suffer from war delusions to such a degree that they do not mind undermining the service and destroying that morale. There is competition on the part of certain high officials in collecting funds for the war. In the most scandalous manner they are using intimidation and extortion in order to collect funds. Certain officials at Bloemfontein submitted the matter to me and they were, of course, very much afraid of victimisation. But I did get the facts and came to the conclusion that at the present moment people on the railways are being forced to do things they do not wish to do. If an official or an artisan does a little job for himself on the railways he is at once suspended and dismissed the service. He dare not take a bit of material and make something for himself before or after working hours. At Bloemfontein there was a Navy Week, and 34 artisans, apart from natives and ordinary labourers, participated in that Navy Week. I asked a question of the Minister as to how many hours were devoted to the manufacture of material for the Navy Week in the workshops, and the Minister’s reply was 770 hours. My information is that three artisans and one apprentice alone worked 790 hours for Navy Week. The total given by the Minister is 770 hours, and we must remember that there were 34 artisans employed. The railway artisan is not allowed to do any work without having an order, and that work is booked up in his time sheet of 8 hours. According to that the cost of the work is estimated. These people were intimidated and forced to work for Navy Week and to book it to other working orders. I mention B.8553. Goods Shed, on which work was booked for Navy Week. Then there is S.38, Inspector of Works, Equipment. Then there is S.90, Ganger, material. In other words, these statements have been falsified. The man must declare that the information contained in the statemetnt is true and he must sign it. Those statements were falsified. Senior officials permit these statements to be falsified and so doing are undermining the morale of the railways. I should like to ask this question of the Minister of Railways—I do not hold him personally responsible ….

Why not; he is responsible if he has such rotten officials.

He evidently does not know about it.

He ought to know about it.

I want the Minister to promise to have this matter investigated and those officials who made themselves guilty of such intimidation must be thoroughly punished or sacked by him. We expect him to do that. My information is further to the effect that also the materials of the railways were used in doing work for Navy Week and that the material was then booked up to working orders of the Administration, although the work was done for Navy Week. In other words, there was theft of railway material. What is more, those articles manufactured out of railway material in the railway workshops were sold to the public of Bloemfontein at less than the cost of the material. The stuff was sold at a loss, justin order that they could collect funds for Navy Week. We know that in Stanley Road houses were built for the railways. People who went to work at King’s Park had their time booked as if they had been working in Stanley Road. It is small wonder therefore that the houses at Stanley Road cost £8,000 more than the estimate. The Government is in favour of the war. We differ from its policy but we can understand that the Government is in favour of the war, and we find no fault with it in this connection. But when it allows the morale of the railway service to be undermined in this manner, so that the whole reputation of the service is destroyed, we ask: Where will the Minister and his Administration stop? What will be the future result of this course of action if officials perhaps do the same thing and make something for themselves and then book it on the working order? If that happens it will be the responsibility of the Minister of Railways and his senior officials who break down that tradition and who intimidate people to do such things. In the years 1943 and 1944 we repeatedly drew the attention of the Minister of Railways in this House to the fact that there was something radically wrong with the system of promotions of senior officials on the railways. We asked the Minister to devote his attention to the matter. There is resentment and a deep-seated feeling of grievance on the part of officials about this irritating system of promotion, where there is discrimination made between officials, but not on the basis of efficiency, industry or ability. When somebody has caught the eye of the manager, if he is his favourite, then promotion to the highest post lies open to him. The Minister of Railways on that occasion told my leader that only he knows of the dissatisfaction in the railways but that the Minister of Railways himself does not know anything about it. He said that the Leader of the Opposition was the only person who knew about the so-called deep dissatisfaction. He said that last March. In October his own Employees’ Association sent a delegation to him, and inter alia they discussed with him the dissatisfaction which exists about promotions. The secretary of that association—an association formed by the Minister himself—who is an English-speaking person, told the Minister that never before had there been such deep-seated dissatisfaction about promotions in the railway service. In spite of that the Minister said in this House that only the Leader of the Opposition knows about the dissatisfaction, while it was said to him in his own office and was published in his own monthly journal. I go further. That dissatisfaction goes much deeper. In Durban Mr. Breyl was Divisional Manager. All his life he was an S.A. Party supporter. He has never been a supporter of the Nationalist Party, and when war broke out he was an enthusiastic supporter of the Prime Minister’s policy. That man wrote to the General Manager and accused him in black and white of making promotions only in accordance with racial considerations. The letter was written in English and stated that if a person is “Dutch” he receives no promotion. The complaint comes not only from these benches alone but also from the Minister’s own supporters who put it in writing to the General Manager and who make this serious accusation that promotion in the railway service is given only in accordance with racial consideration. Such a complaint coming from that side ought to move the Minister of Railways to serious consideration of the matter and he ought to take steps to put an end to this deplorable discrimination in connection with promotions in the railways. I do not want to enter into details but I should like to mention two cases. Last year I drew attention to the three posts of Superintendent, Business, in Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg All three of these posts were on a salary basis of £1,200 per annum. The post in Johannesburg was regraded to £1,400. If it had not been regraded an Afrikaansspeaking official would have had to be appointed. He was the most capable person and he was next in line for promotion. I defy the Minister or anyone else to come and tell me that that official was not capable. He should have had that promotion. The post was then regraded to £1,400 and I asked the Minister why he did it. The Minister’s reply was that Johannesburg was a very important railway centre, that the traffic was much heavier and that the responsibility was therefore much greater than in Cape Town or Durban. That was quite an acceptable explanation. I however pointed out to the Minister that after he had regraded the post he appointed a junior official to act in it for months and months—an official who was junior to the officials in Durban and Cape Town. The post was regraded so that a responsible person should be appointed, but in spite of that this happened. But what happened further? The post of Superintendent, Staff, became vacant in Johannesburg. The salary connected with that post is £1,400. The man who had to be promoted was again an Afrikaans-speaking person. That post was reduced to £1,200 so that that Afrikaans-speaking person could not be appointed. Is Johannesburg such an important place that a post has to be graded higher, on one day, while the next day it is again so unimportant that the post must be reduced? Cannot the Minister see that the policy followed is the conscious one of promoting certain persons and keeping others out? I say it is a scandal that the Minister of Railways allows such things. If we base promotions in the railways on racial considerations, it is the end of co-operation between the European races in our country. If there is an English-speaking Minister and an English-speaking General Manager, the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population must not be made to feel that their chances of promotion are at an end; and vice versa, when there is an Afrikaans-speaking Minister, the English-speaking people should also be able to feel that as regards promotion they will be treated reasonably and justly. I make an appeal to the Minister of Railways to put his foot down now and to put and end to this annoying discrimination in the railways as regards senior posts. Take the question asked by the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) concerning the management of the air service in South Africa. During last year we mentioned the case of Col. Leverton who went North and who was appointed as manager of road motor services, while he was still there. Hé knew nothing about road motor services, but he received an increase up to £1,400. He has never had anything to do with road motor services, because when he returned from the North by aeroplane he received an increase to £1,600 as Superintendent, Parliamentary. He came here by aeroplane because there was haste required for him to take charge of this important work. Since 1919 we have had one Superintendent, Parliamentary, at a salary of £1,000, and there was no second in command. Through all these years, until last year, we only had one. Now a special post of £1,600 is created and this person is brought here by plane especially to take charge of it. That journey by aeroplane had very important consequences for him. He has now been appointed as Assistant Manager of the South African Air Services, and the only knowledge he has of aeroplanes is the journey he had from the North. In 1939 he received £1,200 and Col. Holtshauzen, £1,400. Col. Holtshauzen is now receiving £1,400 as Manager, and this Col. Leverton is receiving £1,600 as Assistant Manager. That is the business policy followed in the railways. What will we say of a firm which pays its general manager £1,000, and its assistant manager £2,000? That, however, is the business method of the railways. It makes one laugh. Can the Minister not see what is going on in the railways? It is a ridiculous position which is being created and it causes deep dissatisfaction. I want to direct an urgent appeal to the Minister of Railways. How long will he allow the interests of the Afrikaans-speaking people to be made a football to.be kicked up and down? It is time for him to act and to put and end to all this irritating discrimination which is in progress on the railways.

I second the amendment. To begin with I want to follow up what was said by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) the other day in connection with contracts between the Government and Ministers of the Cabinet. I made investigations and I find that this matter of contracts which are entered into with, members of Parliament, and of the Senate, formed the subject of an investigation by a Select Committee of the Senate. I may say that this matter was investigated by a Select Committee right at the beginning of Union, and in 1927 the Senate again decided to appoint a Select Committee. The report of that Committee was submitted in 1927 (Senate S.C. 5—’27). The Select Committee consisted of Senator F. S. Malan as chairman, Senator Briggs, Senator Churchill Senator Langenhoven, Senator Potgieter, Senator Stuart and Senator van Niekerk. The report was submitted on the 17th June, 1927. I am glad the Deputy Prime Minister is here, because I am going to devote my whole speech to this report so that we can appreciate what the Select Committee felt in regard to this matter. They submitted the following report—

1. (1) Your committee has given careful consideration to the subject of enquiry and has had placed before it a Memorandum by the Clerk of the Senate (Appendix A) giving the precedence in regard to legislation upon the subject passed by the Imperial Parliament and the Parliaments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand as well as those of the late Natal, Transvaal and Orange River Colonies.
2. (2) Your Committee concurs in the recommendation made by the Senate Select Committee on the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Bill in the First Session of the Union Parliament, but there should be separate legislation on the subject. In this connection it is observed that legislative provision on the subject in regard to municipali ties is already in existence, in the Cape Province (vide Ordinance No. 10 of 1912—Sections 46—49), in the Transvaal Province (vide Ordinance No. 9 of 1912, Sections 37—41), and in the Orange Free State (vide Ordinance No. 4 of 1913 Sections 26—28); in Natal provision was made by Act No. 19 of 1872 (Section 51).
3. (3) Your Committee has therefore considered the provisions which should be contained in such legislation and has embodied them in a Bill attached hereto (Appendix B) which it recommends be introduced into the Senate as soon as possible with the object of it being placed upon the Statute Book.

It was signed by Senator F. S. Malan as chairman. Then we go to Appendix A. The first section deals with the report of the Select Committee which was established in the year 1910/11 (S.C. No. 5—1910/11). Certain paragraphs are quoted, and I want to read a few of them to the House—

Your Committee has come to the conclusion that although such provisions have been included in the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Acts of the late Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, they would not appear to be proper to such laws.

It is therefore strongly recommended that a special Bill dealing with this subject be introduced into Parliament and at an early date.

On the 22nd February, 1911, the Select Committee of 1910/1911 laid the following Bill on the Table—

I shall not quote all the clauses, but I do want to quote some of them—

1. (1) From and after the end of this present Session of Parliament any person who shall directly or indirectly himself or by any other person whatsoever in trust for him or for his use or benefit or on his account undertake, execute, hold and enjoy, in the whole or in part, any contract, agreement or commission made or entered into with the Government or with any person or persons whatsoever, for or on account of the Government, or shall knowingly and willingly furnish or provide in pursuance of any such agreement, contract or commission, which he or they shall have made or entered into as aforesaid, any money to be remitted abroad or any wares or merchandise to be used or employed in the service of the Government shall be incapable of being nominated or elected, or of sitting or voting as a member of either House of Parliament during the time that he shall execute, hold or enjoy any such contract, agreement or commission or any part or share thereof, or any benefits or emolument arising from the same.

Then Clause 2—

Then we omit (3). In Clause (4) it is laid down that anyone who contravenes Clauses 1 and 2, or is disabled and declared incapable under those clauses and who nevertheless presumes to sit in Parliament, will be subject to a fine of £500 for every sitting day. Then we find that in Clause (5) it is laid down that contractors who admit any member of Parliament to share any of their contracts, are also subject to a fine. Then we come to the resolution of the Select Committee of that year—

I may say that the aforegoing clauses were adapted from the Imperial Act—“The House of Commons (Disqualification) Act, 1782” (22 Geo. III cap. 45). The report also mentions that Erskine May has the following references to the subject—

A contractor sitting or voting is liable to forfeit £100 for every day on which he shall sit or vote, to any person who may sue for the same; and every person against whom this penalty shall be recovered is incapable of holding any contract. The Act also imposes a penalty of £500 upon any person who admits a member of the House of Commons to a share of a contract. Section 4 of the House of Commons (Disqualification) Act, 1801 (41 Geo. III, c. 52) disqualifies in the same manner, and under similar penalties all persons holding contracts with any of the Government Departments in Ireland.

I wonder, since the Minister of Railways allowed a member of the Cabinet to enter into a contract with the Government in respect of the Railways, whether he is not also liable and subject to a fine of £500. The memorandum goes on—

These briefly are the laws of the United Kingdom. I just want to refer briefly to the laws of the other Dominions. In the first place I take the laws of the Dominion Parliament in Canada. There a fine of 200 dollars per day can be imposed—

There are certain exceptions. Then I come to the Quebec Province—

Then there is the Province of Prince Edward Island—

In Section 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Parliament of Australia it is provided—

The State of New South Wales has the same provision, and the same applies to the State of Queensland. The State of South Australia goes further, and states that there are certain exceptions—

But then provision is made for the exceptions—

Then there is the State of Tasmania which has the same provisions, except in the case of an incorporated trading company which cosists of more than six persons. Then there is the State of Victoria and the State of Western Australia. But now we come to the Union of South Africa before we had unification. In the Cape Colony there was no law or provision; but the constitution of the Colony of Natal (Act No. 14 of 1893) provides—

In the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, top, there was a provision that they would pay a fine of £500 for contempt. Thereafter new legislation was introduced in New Zealand and Canada, which confirms the fact that the Government may not enter into a contract with a member of either House. The Malan Committee, the Committee of 1927, came to the following conclusion—

The numbers of persons are ten in the United Kingdom; twenty-five in Australia (Federal Parliament) ; twenty in the State Parliaments of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia; Victoria, twelve and Tasmania six—

This is a brief summary of the conclusion to which the Committee came when they dealt with this matter in 1927, and they then came forward with this Bill, which is called—

I may say that although this Bill was submitted by the Select Committee, the Government did not proceed to incorporate it in an Act. But I should like to deal with the clauses of this Bill which are relevant to the matter. Section 1 reads as follows—

Clause two provides ….

I hope the hon. member is not going to quote the whole Bill.

I shall be as brief as possible. I shall omit certain things.

On a point of order, may I point out that it is a matter of the greatest importance and that this Bill is relevant to the matter.

I understand that, and I have allowed the hon. member to read long extracts from the report of the Select Committee, but as far as I can see the hon. member’s speech consists entirely of what he has just quoted, and it is against the spirit of the rule if an hon. member reads his speech.

On a point of order; the position is that the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) is discussing the question as to whether a member of Parliament has the right to be a member of Parliament, and in order to do so he must surely quote the provisions of any legislation in connection with the matter in support of his argument. What he is doing now is to prove his case by quoting the provisions of the legislation in connection with this matter.

I have no objection to the hon. member quoting extracts, but I cannot allow him to read the whole Bill to the House in order to support his arguments.

The hon. member’s point is not that it is a question of opinion, but a question of law, and he is now quoting what the law is. If you forbid him to quote the provisions of the law in connection with this matter, he may as well sit down.

According to the rule the hon. member is not allowed to read his speech, and if throughout his whole speech he does nothing but quote, without advancing his own arguments, it seems to me he is contravening the rule.

But surely the hon. member cannot unfold his arguments until such time as he has read the provisions of the law. After all, his whole argument will be based on the provisions of the law.

I have been on my feet for twenty minutes, and I hope to take up not more than another five minutes. Clause two reads as follows—

What does Clause 55 of the South Africa Act say? It says—

The South Africa Act is very clear on this point. It also appears in the strongest wording in the report of the 1910 Select Committee, as well as this Report of the Select Committee of 1927. The Select Committee of 1927 now comes forward with a Bill, a Bill which is laid before the Senate. We now come to Clause 3, “Persons deemed to be disqualified”. Clause 3 says—and this is the attitude of the Select Committee of which the late Senator F. S. Malan was chairman—

We maintain that this contract is a contract for public work which is strictly prohibited. It does not matter whether the contract is big or not. Now I omit Clause 4—this deals with the exceptions. I just want to go into it briefly. Clause 5 says—

Now I come to Clause 6 which deals with penalties. Clause 6 says—

Our South Africa Act—and I think our Act is modelled on the Acts of the United Kingdom and of the various Dominions—makes it very clear that no person may occupy a position of profit in the State if he is a member of either House of Parliament, or a member of a provincial council. Provision is also made in every province in connection with municipalities. May I also refer to the Divisional Council Ordinance? Exactly the same rule applies there. I remember that a member of a certain Divisional Council leased office buildings to the Divisional Council during a previous election and he was disqualified as a member of the Divisional Council after he had been a member of the Divisional Council for years. He again stood as a candidate and it was then objected that he was leasing buildings to the Divisional Council and that he was disqualified on that ground, and he was disqualified. Even in “he smaller bodies a person who has an interest in the division may not sit as a member, and here we have a case where a Minister of the Cabinet has a contract with the Government, and nevertheless the Government carries on with the contract knowing that the Minister has such a contract. I cannot believe that the Minister Of Transport is not aware of the laws of Great Britain and its various Dominions. Even in the Union the position was that the laws of Natal and the Free State and the Transvaal, before unification, clearly laid down that no one may be a member of the House of Assembly, of the Senate or a provincial council if he has a contract with the Government or the provincial council. I hope therefore that the Government will regard this matter in a very serious light. I have nothing personal against the Minister of Lands, but a principle is at stake here, and for the sake of this principle it is necessary for the Government to take steps either to terminate all contracts which they have with a member of the House of Assembly or of the Senate, or failing that, those members must forfeit their seats. That is the only way to keep our administration clean. I just want to raise one further matter. I want to ask the hon. Minister since we have vast stretches of land in this country, areas which are not served by railways, not only to make promises of bus services in those distant parts, but to give effect to those promises in practice. Every day we receive letters from these distant parts in which the people ask for bus services and railway lines. Deputation after deputation from those parts have asked the Minister to provide those distant parts with bus facilities or railway facilities; but we also want to ask the hon. Minister, in those cases where the railways institute bus services, to make money available to the local bodies or the provincial administrations to enable them to build main roads in those areas, and then we must have bus services at regular intervals along those routes. The Minister will remember that a few weeks ago a deputation came to see him, and it appeared from their representations that where a bag of cement costs one person 9s. f.o.r. in one place, it costs another person 21s. in another place. What about the ordinary requirements and agricultural implements which one requires? Those people may have marketable stock; they have wool and grain and they cannot send it to the market, and if they do send it to the market, they have to suffer a great loss because they have to transport it over great distances. I therefore want to make a plea to the Minister to provide these distant parts with bus services or railway lines as soon as possible and to make available a large sum for the building of roads. I am speaking subject to correction, but I think last year £25,000 was given to the provincial administrations for the building of roads or the reparation of roads on which buses travel. But I want to ask the Minister to make available a much bigger sum this year and to see to it that roads are built in these distant parts where there are no roads today. I can assure the Minister that the need for greatly extended bus services is imperative.

Mr. Speaker, it is very significant that this Session we have had several motions complaining that the Government has made no constructive proposals for dealing with matters affecting South Africa. It is significant that the one matter which we can fairly say is of vital importance to South Africa, the question of air control, the question of linking up that control with the rest of Africa, in spite of the fact that four members of the Opposition have already spoken on this subject, not one of them dealt with that matter.

Nonsense.

You cannot understand Afrikaans.

No one has objected to the steps the Minister is taking. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) referred to the conference being held overseas but made no reference at all to the announcement made by the Minister about the conference to be held here.

But there is nothing in that announcement.

I want to deal first of all with one of the matters touched on. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) referred in his speech to the alleged unfair treatment of the Afrikaansspeaking members of the service, and he went so far as to say that if these promotions continued, i.e., his allegation of the promotion of English-speaking people, the white race in South Africa will be doomed.

Nonsense. He never said anything like that. You should go and learn Afrikaans.

If he did not say so, that was the inference to be drawn from his remarks; otherwise why bring in the question of the white race?

Nonsense. He never said that.

Last year the Opposition brought forward the same wild charges in fact so much so that the Leader of the Opposition put down a notice of motion which was really a vote of censure, and when it was shown how completely false the allegations were and how on previous occasions the members of the Opposition for, as they thought, good reason, had promoted Afrikaans-speaking people over the heads of others, the Minister in his reply gave very good reasons for the steps taken and showed how totally unfounded the charges were, but the hon. member comes forward again this year and brings forward similar charges.

He is asking for an enquiry. Why not wait and let the matter be investigated?

I will reply to the hon. member who said that they have asked for an enquiry. When we on this side of the House made a similar charge many years ago against the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and when it was supported by very strong evidence, the reply I give to you now is the reply you gave to us then, when you rejected the motion; there was no need for such enquiry. The facts will speak for themselves, and you know perfectly well in your hearts that there is no real basis at all for these charges of discrimination.

Nonsense.

You cannot understand Afrikaans and cannot even understand the speeches made here.

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) is very vocal. He is vocal on these matters but I do not think one need really take the hon. member very seriously.

Who takes you seriously?

I replied to one of his charges but most of his speeches are equally unfounded. It is no good making a statement that Government members here are unilingual. It is much to our regret that these things should be so.

And ours.

That may be so, but let me say that we do our best to understand and to get hold of what hon. members are saying, and it is very seldom that we misunderstand what they say.

How do you know? In this instance you misunderstood.

My reply is that we compare the speeches with the translation, and we then find that we were not very wrong. But I want to deal with some other matters here. The hon. member referred to the way railway workshops were being misused for war purposes.

We did not object to that. We objected against the way in which it was done.

I want to say that as the result of this war the efficiency of the railway workshops has improved 100 per cent. and that they are today making railway equipment which was never thought of previously.

That is no reply to the accusation.

It is all as the result of the war that we were called upon to do these things. A burden was cast upon this country which resulted in greater efficiency in the railway service and in the railway workshops; and may I say in connection with that that it is not only the men in the railway workshops but also the women who helped to play their part in this country.

What has that got to do with the matter?

Afterwards when the war is over and the country returns to the transition between war and peace we will find what has been the true value of the work of the last five years which the railways turned out for the war.

The question now is that there has been deceitful use of the workshops.

May I ask the hon. member to keep quiet. The hon. member always interrupts but when he gets to his feet he is always futile.

Not half as futile as you are. You have never made a sensible speech in the House since you have been here.

Order! Hon. members must not indulge in this personal recrimination.

May I deal with this matter of the Air Conference? I think it is a conference which is being welcomed by the vast majority of people in this country. During the last few years air travelling and equipment have increased to such an extent that what only a few years ago was considered to be impossible or improbable is today, a matter of course. When we find that the great air fleets are today conducting a ferry service across the Atlantic, towing transport planes, and when we find that the Americans are considering the necessity for contacting Southern Africa, we must agree that the Minister has taken a very correct and a very bold step indeed in calling together this conference, and we are certain that much good and benefit to the country will result. Now, in dealing with some of these other matters which have been raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, he has dealt briefly with the question of the alleged failure on the part of the Minister to create reserves during the last five years. I may say, first of all, that I have got a lot of sympathy with the criticism that has been raised in the country over the question of increasing the railway rates by 10 per cent. during the last few months, but what I fail to understand is the charge made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) that during the last five years, in spite of repeated requests from that side of the House, the hon. the Minister has failed to create any reserves. Did the hon. member quote any figures as to what was done? He gave only one figure, which dealt with rates equalisation. Is the hon. member aware of the amount which was paid out of railway funds for depreciation and for capital funds during the last five years? Is the hon. member aware of the sums which have been paid out for capital funds, renewal funds, rates equalisation funds, apart from the statutory amount for depreciation? I think it would have been useful if the hon. member had given these figures, because far from the Minister being to blame for having neglected to protect the capital assets of this country, I should say that with all his faults, that one cannot be laid at his door; I mean all the faults alleged by the Opposition. Let me deal with the figures that the hon. member has quoted. In the last five years, that is taking the year as ended March, 1945, no less a sum (I am giving it in round figures) than £21,000,000 has been taken from revenue and placed to renewals fund. £5,800,0000 went to betterment fund and £6,900,000 to rates equalisation fund, while for depreciation (that is a statutory provision) the sum of just on £19,000,000 was paid out to railway funds, making a total contribution out of revenue during the last five years of £52,858,000. That sum has been taken out of the revenues of the railways and placed to what might be called capital funds. The hon. member says no reserve has been created. Is not an amount of £21,000,000 placed to renewals fund a reserve? What is that but a reserve?

You always do that.

We don’t always do that. We don’t do that in times of depression; it is only done in times when we have a surplus. In any case, when you are taking sums from revenue and placing them to the credit of these particular funds, I maintain you are creating reserves and that the Minister has created this reserve during the last five years. Let me take another point. Capital of an interest bearing nature is, as at the 31st March, £178,000,000. That is to say that in the last five years we have taken practically 30 per cent. of that capital of £178,000,000 out of revenue; in the ordinary way it would have been applied to the reduction of that debt, but it has been used for the purposes that have been mentioned. Let me go further. Take your renewals fund. As I have said, during the past five years the renewals fund subscribed to revenue some £21,000,000 of which £9,324,000 has been spent, whereas in actual value of rolling stock, machinery, etc., affected it is only £717,000. Has that not been building up reserves, building up capital assets? I submit on the contrary that the Minister has gone very far, and where I join issue is this, that today, or rather as a result of our policy during the past five years and as a result of this increased expenditure that has taken place during the last 12 months (I have not time to go into that matter today), we are likely to be faced with a deficit. But I want to point out that during the financial year ending March of this year this sum of £7,368,000 has been taken out of reyenue for capital purposes. Of that sum £3¾ millions is for statutory depreciation in terms of the Railway Committee’s report of 1941, leaving a balance of roughly the same amount which has been taken out to feed these other funds, thereby creating the deficit we are likely to have. I submit to the Minister the time has now come when there will have to be a suspension of contributions to these funds, because I think that very serious harm is done to the country in a time like this when railway rates are increased. I want to put this to the Minister, and he will forgive me, because it is a matter of criticism, I have heard a great deal of criticism outside that the effect of this 10 per cent. increase on railway rates has had a detrimental effect on the development of industry. For instance, in respect of one section of the industry, in regard to the mining industry I am informed that in connection with the purchase of mining stores for use underground it has represented an increase in cost to the mines of roughly £1,000,000 to £1,500,000 per annum. Even worse than this is the general effect this increase in rates has on commerce and industry throughout the country. In all quarters steps are being taken to keep down costs in view of the effect on the cost of living. Hon. members will know perfectly well that an increase of 10 per cent. on railway rates and on the cost of transporting the necessities of life must affect the cost of living; and where steps are being taken to see that those costs are being kept within due bounds, I submit that it is a very serious matter that an increase should have occurred through railway rates. I want to remind the Minister of his statement last year on the Budget on this matter, because I do think it is very pertinent to the question of dealing with these deficits at this particular time. He was asked as to the question of the rates equalisation fund, and he said—

That is quite right, but the hon. Minister went on to say—

There is no quarrel in that, but the Minister proceeds—

I think most of us feel rather perturbed about that statement. We understand that those funds were allocated to deal with what was hoped to be only a, temporary deficit in the railway revenue. I may point out there is quite a lot in the hon. member’s remarks on this question of the alleged loss in defence traffic. In his statement on that last year the Minister said this—

That was since early in 1944, and I agree with the Minister there. But what I fail to understand is this. It has always been a matter of argument as to how we have had these losses which it is alleged have been sustained on defence traffic. The loss is ascribed to the fact that certain goods are carried for the Defence Department at half rates that in the case of the ordinary public would be charged at full rates; hence the loss. Nothing of the sort. Half those trains would run in any case. The fact that you may be carrying passengers for the Defence Department does not mean that you are excluding other passengers who are paying full fare What I would point out to the Minister is this: Surely we can look for a possible falling off in defece traffic during the coming twelve months with an increase in full-paying traffic, and I would seriously urge the Minister to reconsider this increase in rates. This increase in rates has had a very serious effect on the public mind generally. As we are aware, the Board of Trade is conducting an enquiry into the effect of railway rates on industry. It is a matter that must cause grave concern, and I venture to suggest that if it can be definitely shown that the increase in railway expenditure is such as to demand an increase in railway rates an investigation should take place to determine which particular rates should be increased. There should be no all-round increase in railway rates, irrespective of what section is going to be hit; and it seems to me that one of our problems is going to be how in respect of our institutions such as the railways we can maintain efficiency bearing in mind the increased costs which we know they have, and at the same time definitely see that the cost structure of this country is not permanently increased. This is a problem that does seriously affect industry. Hon. members may say: Oh, you don’t like it because you have to pay costs. It does not affect commerce. Increased railway rates are passed on except where the cost of goods is not affected. But let me give you one instance of the effects of increased rates on costs. The cost of cement rates has been fixed at the different stations throughout the country, and I understand that as a result of this increased railway rate representations were made to the Price Controller, who agreed, for an increase of 1d. per 100 lbs. to cover the increased cost imposed through the railways. All these factors must have a definite effect, and today when we are doing our level best to keep down costs the abolition of that increase in the rates should be seriously considered. May I say that the public is hit still harder by the fact that the Minister of Finance also imposes an extra 15 per cent. on the traffic, and as a result of that when the two increases in cost are combined, the increase actually works out at 26¼ per cent.

It keeps down passenger traffic.

Yes, but when one remembers that although the Minister took the step with the object of the discouragement of travelling, the abolition of the privilege to railway users connected with this extra imposition does place a very severe extra heavy burden on the lower paid sections of the population. I do not wish to deal with other matters, but may I in conclusion say this, that I would like to congratulate the Railway Administration on this little brochure which they have produced, “Glances at railway work”. It is, I think, instructive, and will be beneficial, and I only hope that other Ministers will follow that example and publish similar brochures describing the work of their departments and giving us an inside knowledge of the more intimate side. That I am perfectly certain, will be of benefit to all of us.

I wish to begin with a very simple plea for the nonEuropean workers in the railways and harbours service. I shall not be called upon, unhappily, to deal with huge amounts of money such as have just been mentioned by the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock), but rather with very small amounts which spell tragedy in the daily lives of a large number of decent people. There are very many of them, for at the end of 1943 the number of these workers was given as 57,519; with their wives and their children and their aged dependants (in whose lives the conditions of their employment are reflected) they represent clearly nearly, a quarter of a million people.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

I must first of all say a word or two about casual labour. In a very real sense casual employment is the very worst net in which a man can find himself. We talk a great deal about social security. Surely there cannot be the least element of social security for a man or his household when the worker is liable to a termination of his work at almost a moment’s notice. Now, Sir, that is precisely the plight of the 57,519 non-Europeans on the railways. It does not matter what type of work they are engaged upon, nor for how long they have been so occupied as labourers, they are still casuals. They cannot become permanent workers in the sense that they are appointed to the permanent staff, and they are subject to dismissal on twenty-four hours’ notice. On any Monday they may be told that as from tomorrow, from Tuesday, their bread is severely mortgaged, indeed foreclosed upon. That is not the only disability of the casual labourer. Unless they have gone, casually, in many cases to the same job, for more than five years, they do not even get medical care unless they are actually injured on duty; and if after a period of years in one place, where they have set up a little home and planted some potatoes, they are then moved to another district, they lose the first period of service, in so far as it should have counted towards a little gratuity which they get in cases now and then when they ultimately leave the service, being too old to work any more. I want to protest against the magnitude of this casual labour on the railways. I want to suggest that there should not be any, or at least there should be next to none. We often hear talk about the improvidence of the households of these very poor people. It is impossible to be systematic in outlaying the household money if one’s husband, for example, is an intermittent casual labourer on the railways, as they are known, his job being to go down to the docks and stand by in the hope of getting some work. If he gets 15s. one week for two days’ work and £2 10s. the next week, it tends to improvidence; under these conditions a housekeeper cannot possibly budget in any practical or systematic way. And the same applies, of course, to redundant casuals, those who are put on for a particular job. If the man has had no work for six months, is then employed for seven, and thereupon is unemployed again for eight months, how can the woman be systematic in outlay under those conditions. Those conditions exist and obtain to a large extent on the railways. Probably the House understands quite well that the railway is divided for administrative purposes into nine systems. As far as pay is concerned, I want to deal with two of them, and not the worst two at that. In the Cape Western system a coloured man who is married will get 6s. 6d. a day. Each year he will get an increase of 3d. a day, until he rises to 7s. 9d. The single coloured man or the African, whether he is married or single, gets 6s. He also gets a rise of 3d. a day each year until het gets 7s. 3d. But when we take the next, the Cape Northern system, we find a tremendous difference. The highest rate there is not 6s 6d. but 4s. for the coloured man who is married. The coloured single man or the native, married or unmarried, gets, 3s. 6d. a day. Once more he will get his 3d. a day rise until he comes to 4s. 9d. But on the occasion of the announcement of the 10 per cent. increase in railway fares, the Minister stated that this rise was primarily necessitated by the urgency of the need to raise the wages of employees. He stated also that the minimum wage for unskilled work would henceforth be 10s. a day. This certainly is not the case with regard to these coloured people; a matter of £15 a year is at stake. It was agreed that £900,000 must be allotted to the non-Europeans. If you take the 60,000 men roughly, for whom I am pleading at the moment, and divide that number into £900,000, you will see it comes to £15 a year, £1 5s. per month. But even if that is added to the previous rate, it will not bring the pay of the highest paid employee to 10s. a day, and in the case of the lowest paid ones, they will still get less than 5s. a day. It seems to me that this is far too little for any human being, whatever his colour, and wherever he may live or try to live, to keep a woman and children sufficiently fed and decently clothed. How can it be done? I put it to the Minister, in this better world that we are to have, we are all striving to achieve that those down at the bottom shall be first considered and most considered. It is six years ago now since I protested in this House myself against the fact that these people do not get what workers get from other industrial employers, in as much as they just have their money pushed across to them over the counter, instead of having it in an envelope which sets out the number of hours worked each week, the overtime they worked and the ordinary time, and the amount of pay per hour and the exact amounts deducted, if any, and the reasons for such deductions. That is not done in this particular case. And one does not see why it is not done. As present the men do not know what is the sum that is due to them, and therefore they are unable to say whether they have received the correct amount or not. Now, surely, Sir, that is a little reform which is not beyond the ingenuity of, I suppose, the General Manager, to overcome, and one hopes it will be done. As regards holiday and sick pay, I have strong feelings on those two subjects. I want to be as brief as possible. Annual holiday is granted nowadays, but there is differentiation even here. The coloured man does receive 12 days paid holiday per year, the Indian and the native receive six, but on the railways this is a privilege. With regard to other industrialists, they have the right to 21 days paid holiday during the year. In the case of these non-Europeans, the idea of sick pay does not appear to exist. There is no provision whatsoever. Yet the hon. Minister of Labour could not register a wage board determination, nor could he pass an Industrial Council agreement, unless at least 14 days sickness on full pay is allowed during the year. It seems to me unjust to discriminate in this way, and I am asking the Minister that the extra privileges which have been granted under the Factory Act and other Acts to Europeans, should now be exended much more fully to these our weaker brethren. I have had complaints about the railway houses into which these non-European employees are put; they are dirty and dilapidated, while the sanitary arrangements are very primitive and practically non-existent. The houses, in fact, are something like a pattern for a location slum. It occurs to me here that it is rather a pity that these employees should have to occupy the houses of their employers, and that the employer should also be the landlord; because if the workers concerned happen to get 24 hours’ notice—and many of them do—they have to get out of the house, dirty or dilapidated though it may be, and it is a physical impossibility that they should have the money saved and available for the next month’s rent. In regard to the out-station workers, who are accommodated in those extraordinary inverted V-shaped huts made of corrugated iron, with a floor space of 6 ft. by 8 ft.—those are the dimensions—from four to six workers are placed in these huts. Surely we should hesitate to put a couple of sheep in such a pen for the night, and I say calculatedly, it is not far short of cruelty to place these human beings in such a lodgment night after night. We have a Factory Act which lays down that the maximum working hours for ordinary operators is 46 a week; the minimum for these people is 48 to 60; that is not fair. Last of all, they say to me, and I do not know how to answer them—until I am guided—that the ordinary industriial legislation of South Africa does not apply to them at all, and so there is no proper means for settling industrial disputes as they arise. They are governed by staff regulations, and the great trouble is that even these are insufficiently publicised, so that many thousands of these people literally do not know what are the conditions of their service, or to what little bits and pieces they are entitled. We have a very clever Minister of Railways, we have a very clever general manager, but some of these conditions, as I have now put them, have existed for six years, according to my knowledge, and the time has come to change them. If you give me three minutes more, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention the matter of the Cape Railways Widows’ Pension Fund. That stands at a nice sum, being within £1 or £2 of £900,000. The calls on that fund have grown fewer and fewer; the amount of the fund has increased. At a meeting not so long ago a Cape Town auditor foretold that in fifty years time there would be £2,500,000 in that fund. What will be the future use to which that great sum can be put? There may be good enough uses when that time comes, but we had better legislate for the present and not for posterity. Bad times have already come, and I would suggest that the widows who are already receiving pensions should receive larger pensions out of that unnecessarily great fund, and that it should not stop there, and other people who are in receipt of diminutive pensions and are girded around with gigantic prices—that is the position—also should have their pensions increased. We heard a little bit this morning about a huge reserve for rolling stock; we must have new machinery to carry on with in the future. I suggest to the Minister that not merely rolling stock but human stock should be kept in going order, and not at some time in the future but from now. One very peculiar circumstance arises in the Civil Service Act about this particular pension. It is paragraph 61, and I shall read it because I doubt whether the House would believe it otherwise, even if they were staring at my collar the whole time—

He is not merely required to pay 1 per cent., which is the ordinary percentage, on his pension; but on the amount of the highest salary he ever received. He receives for example a pension of £80 a year, and he has to go on paying full rate as if he was still drawing his salary. Surely that has not the approval of the Minister. A man came to me the other day with a most amazing case. He said that his wife died 28 years ago. For more than half that period he has been on pension, and all the time he has been paying at full rates the former contribution to his pension, the sum due when he was drawing his biggest wage, for a contingency that never can arise. I ask that that be corrected forthwith. This man asked me what he could possibly do to get some of his money back. I do not know what you would have advised him, Sir, but I advised him to find some poor and preferably young woman who could do with a little financial help, marry her, and claim the pension.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) expressed surprise that so far we have shown little reaction to the important declaration by the Minister of Transport in connection with post-war aviation. The hon. member cannot understand why we remain silent. Although he did not actually try to ascribe motives, he did endeavour to create an unpleasant impression by his words. I would just like to inform the hon. member that this side of the House is endeavouring to remain well-informed as to the development of aviation in the world, and that, as far as possible, we have made a study of it and hold very decided opinions as to how aviation, how the great highways of the world should be organised and directed. We also hold very decided views as to the place South Africa should occupy in the world scheme, and especially as to how we think the services should be arranged in our own country, and we are certainly not afraid to discuss this matter with the Minister over the floor of the House. I would just like to thank the Minister for raising this matter in Parliament on his own initiative. It is an important problem, certainly one of the most important to which we can give our attention. We are glad that the Minister has on his own, and without pressure from this side of the House, taken us into his confidence, and given us the opportunity of discussing the matter. It is in keeping with the best Parliamentary procedure and traditions. In the first place the Minister told us about the Chicago Conference, and he expressed his regret that, although the conference succeeded in gaining unanimity on certain technical points, it failed in so far as the big fundamental points are concerned, on which alone international co-operation for the future can be built. That is quite correct. But now he goes further, and it seems to me that it is here we on this side of the House differ from the Minister. Because the Chicago Conference has failed, it looks to me as if the Government has given up the idea of devoting all its energies to the attainment of unanimity among the nations, but instead is now trying to obtain unanimity only within a limited sphere; that is to say, instead of international co-operation, the Minister, in the first place, is seeking imperial co-operation. I do not know whether my interpretation of the Minister’s attitude is correct, but if that is the attitude of the Government, then I say that the Minister and the Government have done untold harm to one of the most powerful instruments for international co-operation in the future. Because the moment the attitude is adopted that international co-operation is impossible and that therefore we must try to bring about co-operation within a much more limited circle, the moment that the Minister is satisfied with imperial co-operation, there will naturally be reaction. If one group is organised here, other nations will naturally also form groups. I would like to tell the Minister that if the British Empire tries to organise a group, the natural reaction will be that America and other countries will also try to form groups of friendly states, and the result will be that one of these days the world will again be divided into groups strongly opposing one another.

America was against the idea.

I deny that. That has not yet been proved. The moment England does it, there is obviously going to be reaction on the part of the other Great Powers. Then instead of having international co-operation among the nations of the world, one of these days we will find the nations divided into groups strongly opposing one another, resulting in a feeling of mutual enmity. What does the Minister think will become of international co-operation, cordial relationships and peace in the future? If it must be accepted as impossible to achieve international co-operation in the sphere of international aviation, then we can simply throw overboard all international co-operation or attempts to bring about international co-operation. Then it is useless to talk of international co-operation in the world in order to promote trade and for other purposes. Everything will become pretence and deceit. This is the test to prove if we can achieve world co-operation or not. And if we carry on and take the view that co-operation is not feasible, then it is a sad tiding which we make known to the world. There it is that I find fault with the Minister. I have here before me a short report on similar debates which took place in the parliaments of the other Dominiums. For example, I have a report on the debates on the Chicago Conference in the New Zealand, the Australian and the Canadian Parliaments. I am glad to see that Canada, Australia and New Zealand differ on this point from the Minister of Transport in that it is the aim and object of these countries to be satisfied with nothing less than international co-operation on this important question. In January last year, Australia and New Zealand concluded a mutual agreement. It was signed by Australia on the 24th of January and New Zealand on the 1st of February last year. One of the articles in this agreement deals precisely with the question of civil aviation after the war, and I think that it would be as well for the House to know the attitude which Australia and New Zealand have adopted in connection with this matter. With your permission I would like to read it to you—

Here they go on—

But this comes second on the list. The factor which is considered most important by Australia and New Zealand is that every attempt should be made to get the nations of the world to co-operate on this point, namely that an international body be called into being to define the main air routes of the world and to arrange the necessary services, but that every nation—and this is important—within its own territory—and I think that on this point we are all unanimous—that every nation within its own territory will be responsible for its own air services. This is the viewpoint which Australia, New Zealand and Canada have adopted. It is of importance. Canada has adopted exactly the same attitude—

Here we see that Canada also is in favour of it, and for that reason we deplore that portion of the Minister’s speech where he adopts the attitude that, on account of the failure of the first conference, we must now endeavour to organise a smaller group among the nations, a task which the Minister will make a start with on the 20th March of this year. The result will be that the gulf between the nations in regard to this matter will become wider and wider and anything in the nature of international co-operation will in consequence be made more and more difficult after the war. For that reason I am sorry that the Minister has limited his conference on the 20th March to certain countries in Africa. Why has the Minister done this? The Minister says that he is trying to establish the best air service from Cairo to South Africa. We will only be able to achieve this when all the nations who are affected in Africa co-operate, and if subsidiary services branch off from the main line to right and left; but if the Minister tries to form groups, what will be the result? America also has friends in Africa. How do we know what attitude France, Belgium and Portugal will adopt if, without consulting America, we try to establish such an air service from Cairo to South Africa? Then we must expect that America will also endeavour to co-operate with the states in Africa and set up another air service, and there you will have the beginning of competition among the nations which will certainly not be conducive to international peace and good neighbourliness. I am sorry that the Minister has limited his conference on the 20th March to certain nations in Africa. I would like to ask the Minister whether it is too late to invite all the nations who are concerned in Africa to such a conference?

Would you apply the same principle to shipping?

If we do not endeavour from the start to obtain co-operation from the countries in Africa, we are going to widen the gulf between them still more. This is the important question which is under discussion today. This is the task which has been set us. If we succeed in solving this question in the interests of international co-operation, then there can be other co-operation. If we do not, co-operation in the international sphere will in the future be pretence and deceit. Then the League of Nations will not be a place where the nations assemble to promote peace and unanimity, but once again an institution for international intrigue. This is the test which has been set, and I regret the attitude of the hon. Minister. I would like to see the small nations of the world adopting the attitude that we demand international co-operation, and that we will not join any group. We would like to see all the nations of the world link up together. In addition, the Minister gave us an idea of a few of his other points of policy. I agree with the Minister that in South Africa we have built up an air force and that today we have at our disposal many capable pilots. We know that those men are going to find it more difficult to adapt themselves to civilian life than other sections of the community. We must therefore try and see to it that the air services in South Africa belong to us, so that we can provide as much work as possible for our own pilots, for the men in the air force. There we are completely in agreement with the Minister. We would like to have the best possible air service between Cape Town and Cairo, not one which a group of nations can provide us with, but one which the world can give us. At this stage, therefore, the Minister may not adopt the attitude that international co-operation is no longer possible, and that we must adopt a policy which will only serve to drive nations further apart. It will be a sad day for me if we now acknowledge that international co-operation after the war is no longer possible, and the way in which the Minister has gone about things gives us that impression. Finally I would like to put a request to the Minister. I regret the fact that a conference, comprising only a few and not all the states in Africa, has been arranged for the 20th March. It will be an important conference. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to follow the example set at the time by the National Party Government in connection with the Ottawa Conference. When that conference took place, the Government was not content with sending a Government delegation only, but thought it advisable to ask the then Opposition if they were prepared to send a number of unofficial observers there as well. Some Opposition members attended the conference not as official members of the Government’s delegation, but as unofficial observers. Here we are dealing with one of the most important questions for South Africa and the world in the future. Aviation is going to be a very powerful instrument in bringing nations closer together and moulding all the people of the world into one big family. Aviation can bring nations closer together and create harmony with one another, so much so that ultimately they will form a family circle.

You are talking like Smuts.

But if matters are not tackled in the right way, aviation can become a deadly weapon for the destruction of human happiness and prosperity. We would like to see that this matter is not prejudiced from the start owing to the standpoint which the Minister has adopted which will make international co-operation impossible. We want the world and South Africa to have the benefit of the best possible air services. That is why I am asking the Minister whether he is prepared to follow the example set by the National Government at the time of the Ottawa Conference, where they did not only send a Government delegation to the conference, but considered the conference of such importance that members of the Opposition were asked to attend it as unofficial observers. Is the Minister prepared to consider this proposal?

Mr. Speaker, when the Part Appropriation Bill of the Railways comes before the House it affords some of us an opportunity of dealing as exhaustively as possible with one of the most important Portfolios. I was greatly interested in the speech of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman). I am fully convinced that as with the nation, so with the administration judgment will depend on the manner in which the underprivileged or the lower paid sections of the community are treated. I shall later on deal with the manner in which the Railway Administration has endeavoured to meet the position indicated by the hon. member for Durban (North). But I wish to direct attention to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood). I feel that it is incumbent upon me as an ex-railwayman to give the position as I understand it in relation to at least two sections of the amendment moved by that hon. member. The first section deals with the question of the promtion, since 1939, of officials in the railway service to senior posts and the motion asks that an enquiry should be conducted by a Select Committee of this House. As I have said on former occasions, with all due respect to the position I and other hon. members hold, a Select Committee of this House would not be the best body to deal with such an intimate matter as laid before us here, for such a Committee would in my opinion be shaken to its foundations by Party prejudice. In the second place, any enquiry of such a nature if agreed to should be extended back to the year 1924, when the Pact Government assumed power, and that, Sir, would be going into ancient history. I would ask this House to remember that there is no such thing as ancient history in relation to the service of a Government official, because the earlier years of his service play a very important part in the whole of his service. So, in the first place, if the Minister considers this at all favourably—and I do not think he will—he should go back to the year 1924. Now, in regard to (b), (c) and (d) these are matters upon which the Minister I presume will have all the information required by this House. But in regard to (e), reading as follows—

I would say that if this were agreed to, such an enquiry should be extended to the rebates allowed in connection with farmers’ products in South Africa and other things. My hon. friend reminds me of our old friend in railway matters, the rebates allowed for drought-stricken stock. But there are many others. I would ask the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) why his amendment, particularly paragraphs (a) and (e), merely deal with matters arising out of the war. Why not take the whole of the financial position of the railways in regard to rebates under consideration and be fair in connection with any criticism which might be offered? The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) also asked what the Minister of Railways had done with the enormous surpluses which accrued to the Administration during the war period. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) has given sufficient indication as to what the Minister had done with a portion, at any rate, of these surpluses in that it has been placed to Reserve Funds without the proper financing of which the future of the railways would be very precarious indeed from an economic point of view. A firm financial foundation for the railways will always be a very vital economic factor in the whole of our economy. But, Sir, not only did the Railway Administration use surpluses in order to finance important funds such as the Rates Equalisation Fund, the Betterment Fund, the Renewals Fund, and others, but the Minister of Transport has always endeavoured to better the conditions of service of the railway staff as a whole, including non-Europeans, and I have figures here which were given to me by the Railway Administration indicating that during the war period, the improvements in conditions of service to the staff are costing the Administration, and will continue to cost, while they stand there, an additional amount of £9,000,000. The actual figure—I do not want to exaggerate—is £8,518,000, but there may be other items. Now, having said that, I think the question of what the Minister has done with his surpluses has been fully answered by the hon. member for Sunnyside and myself, but it is open for the Minister of Transport to give us some further details. I want to pay tribute to the Railway Administration this afternoon on their splendid record under most difficult conditions during the war period, and I quote the following from the General Manager’s report—

Now, whether we are talking about surpluses or deficits, the main thing by which the Railway Administration will be judged will not be whether they have earned a profit or incurred a loss, but essentially upon the services they render to the community of South Africa and the conditions applicable to the men and women employed.

What are the services?

There has been a chorus of praise in the country, if not in this House, for the railwaymen, not only because of the services they have rendered but because of the leadership and initiative of their leaders in the carrying out of the war policy of the Government. It would be absurd if we were to say that there is no cause for criticism. We Would be blind if we did not see many aspects in which this Railway Administration could be improved, but it is incumbent upon us to take into consideration the conditions under which the railways have been operated during the way years. I think it will be common ground for criticism to be levelled at the manner in which passengers are conveyed and the difficulties associated with the securing of accommodation. It is very difficult for us, who are laymen, to appreciate the strain that has been placed upon the coaching accommodation available to the Administration. I want to give the following figures: In the year 1937-’38, the passenger journeys on the South African Railways totalled 105,000,000. The figure given for last year is a total of 202,000,000 passenger journeys, an increase of roughly 100 per cent. For the last two years there has been an increase of about 24 per cent. in the long-distance traffic, that is over a period of one year. That is indicative of the pressure placed not only upon the administration in regard to equipment, but in many cases upon the staff themselves. But this question of passenger traffic is very important in relation to the future revenue position on the railways. I propose to deal with that later on. I now want to say that the improvements given to the staff and the developments in the Railway and Harbours Administration along the lines of social welfare, point to one thing, in my opinion, and that is that this State department has set an example to other State departments in South Africa; that it leads in the matter of not only of improvements in pay in relation to the consideration given, not only to the men, but to those they represent and to the conditions under which they live away from the service. Here there has been a great advance during the war period and I would like to recommend to the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) the closest consideration of the advance which has been made in the Railway Administration, in that it does try to deal not only with the conditions pertaining while the men are at work but with their care and that of their families after the working period. The hon. member for Sunnyside was right when he recommended to this House the persual of the publication issued by the administration, dealing with social welfare matters. Now, while I commend that publication to the House, I want to say that, unless the Minister extends these arrangements fully to the non-Europeans, he will fail in the great conception which he has of the duty resting on the administration in relation to these matters. I find on page 76 of the General Manager’s Report there a very significant reference. As hon. members will be aware, the administration is training ladies in the science of social welfare, for it is a science. It does not deal with families or with workers as units, but deals with them from the human and humane point of view. Now, these social workers are trained and they endeavour, as they travel about, from place to place, to ensure that in certain areas and amongst certain groups of the staff there shall be formed clubs, clubs having as their object thé securing of essential foodstuffs at reasonable prices and for their economic distribution. Further, these social workers visit the homes of the workers, and I see on the page referred to that during the year altogether 20,500 visits were paid by the welfare staff to individual families, of which 4,300 were to families of men on active service. I do not want under this aspect of the work of the administration, to say that in this respect it may be that they are setting an example not only to other State departments, but also to the great industrial concerns in South Africa. The question I am endeavouring to deal with is this, that when a move is made in the right direction it is up to every member of this House to commend, as I commend it. If we do not move forward along these lines then a change in our whole system would become necessary rather than that private enterprise should hinder it. My friends in the benches opposite ask whether I would recommend it. This Government is giving private enterprise a trial. If under private enterprise we can continue to move along the lines the railway administration is following, although the movement is slow, much will be done. This Government has done more during the war period, during the period of stress, than the Pact Government did. They never had the money and wages were low. As far as this Coalition Government is concerned—and I pay a tribute to my hon. friends on the Labour benches for what they are doing towards helping forward this movement the position of the lower paid man in the Government service has advanced. I have some figures here showing how the question has been tackled. I have the position here of the rail worker. In 1938 the railway worker, adult, married, received a minimum rate of 7s. 3d. a day. Today, with the big improvement given in October last, the minimum rate is 10s. a day, a figure for which my hon. friends opposite strove for years, and not only is the rate 10s. a day, but added to that is the cost of living allowance and, I think I am correct in saying, the housing rebate. So, let us be fair to the administration. I will always ask the Minister to improve the position, particularly of the non-European worker, and I will do my best along with those who have furthered their cause on the lines of the uplift of the less privileged class. But it is recognised that the Minister has been anything else but inactive in this matter. I go further and ask hon. members to take these figures for non-Europeans into consideration. I can only give basic rates because as hon. members are aware this question of the pay of non-Europeans is largely a regional matter. It is a fault in the economic system but it is so. In Cape Town, in September, 1939, the minimum rate for non-European labourers was 3s. 6d. a day. The basic rate today, with the improvements brought in in October, 1944, is a minimum of 6s. At Kimberley the minimum rate in September, 1939, was 2s. 6d. while today it is 3s. 9d. In Johannesburg the minimum rate in 1939 was 2s. and today it is 3s. 9d. I am not saying that these are sufficient by any means; I am not saying that it is right to have different rates at Johannesburg from what they are at Cape Town for non-Europeans. My hon. friends will take these figures as a framework only because it is very difficult indeed to give a correct reflection of wages.

Can they buy as much with it as they did?

The figures I have given do not include cost-of-living.

The basic increase is about 60 per cent.

But the Railway Administration has a long way to go. They have just taken a step in the right direction and those of us who have tried to assist in what the Minister has done must agree that at least something national has been done. Then, in the Railway Administration there is the question of rent rebate. I have pleaded in this House for differential renting, that if we cannot get a reasonable minimum wage we must subsidise the food and the rent, until we reach that position for which we all long, where every man will be able to pay the ordinary prices and to pay the economic rent applicable. Having said that I would add that the Railway Administration with all its faults ….

And they are many.

…. has increased wages and improved conditions to the extent of £8½ million since 1939. In addition the cost-of-living allowances paid by the administration amounts to £6,600,000, so that the extra cost today is in the neighbourhood of £15,000,000. So when my hon. friend asks what the Railway Administration does with its surpluses, I think one is entitled to state the avenues along which the surplus has been distributed. Of course, I Would never regard anything as a surplus in the railways or in any Government department if the workers they employed were underpaid. It would be a false surplus indeed if that were the case. I should now like to direct the Minister’s attention. I indicated, shall I say, my the revenue position requires most careful attention. I indicated, shall I say, my nervousness in a speech I made in this House last year in connection with the revision of tariffs. The Minister in order to provide for the improvement in the conditions of employment, simply said in effect to the public of South Africa in October, 1944; we want four millions from you, the tariffs will be raised by 10 per cent. I want to suggest that it did not require any sort of genius to undertake that. I thought the time would have been opportune for a revision of the tariffs so as to ascertain what tariffs were at their present rate inimical to the industrial progress of South Africa, in order to ensure that at any rate in the reconstruction period we would be resting on a sound tariff basis. After all, industry does look to the railways for a stable tariff, that is, a tariff that will not be liable to sudden fluctuations, whether it is by way of a 10 per cent. increase or in any other way. I wish to say that although the Railway Administration has increased its tariffs by 10 per cent. and, while it has a very good purpose for which the actual money is required, it is very likely that the revenue position will be such that the 10 per cent. increase cannot be cancelled. But it will certainly open the door to representations being made to the administration for a complete review of tariffs. May I indicate one or two pointers in connection with this matter of revenue, just dealing with the two important items of petrol and passenger traffic. The present high rate for petrol, while very profitable for the railways, is uneconomic from a national point of view, particlularly in relation to industry, and the reversion to the old rate will certainly have a deleterious effect and will not be in accord with the requirements not only of industry but of the ordinary worker who has to go some distance to his work without the convenience of railway communication. The rate on petrol was not increased by 10 per cent.; it was increased by 66 per cent., as far as traffic between Durban and Johannesburg is concerned. The, Minister will agree it can only be temporary. In October, 1936, the rate was 104d. In November, 1936, it was 62d. and in October, 1944, it was 103d. Added to the question of petrol rates you have the question of passenger revenue. The railway passenger revenue has changed in relation to the total revenue, and it is out of all proportion to other forms of traffic. In 1938-’39 the total revenue received from passenger traffic was in the neighbourhood of £6,000,000; in respect of 1943-’44, the total revenue was over £12,000,000, an increase of 100 per cent. The proportion of passenger revenue to total revenue in 1938-’39, was 18.1 per cent., whereas today it is 27.7 per cent. I find that for goods traffic in 1938-’39 the total revenue was £20,300,000 roughly, and in 1943-’44 it was £23,600,000, an increase of approximately £3,300,000; but the proportion of revenue received from goods traffic compared with the total revenue was in 1938-’39 62.36 per cent. and last year it had dropped to 63.6 per cent. Revenue from passenger traffic has increased during the corresponding period by 100 per cent. Revenue from goods traffic has increased during that period by only 15 per cent., while the average increase in revenue was 34 per cent. for the whole period, What I want to point out to the Minister is this. The trains are full of passengers; one has to wait a month to secure accommodation. The present passenger fares are 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. higher for the holidaymaker during the holiday period, that is to say taking into account the difference between the old excursion fare from Johannesburg to Durban and the ordinary return fare. The old first-class excursion fare from Johannesburg to Durban, which was available during the Christmas or Easter holiday period, was £5 5s. Now the first return fare is £9 4s. 7d. It is quite apparent that if we want to meet the holiday requirements of the people of South Africa, it will not be a fair proposition to continue to charge the present ordinary fare. That applies particularly to the workers of the Wit water srand, because when they go to the coast it is generally a matter of necessity. It has to be remembered, too, that once the wartime restrictions are lifted and when private car owners are able to use their vehicles, there will be a decrease in passenger traffic. Clearly, this passenger revenue constitutes a most sensitive feature of the railway finances, and if we are going to maintain it and if we are going to improve the conditions of the worker, I put it to the Minister we must take into serious consideration the whole question not only of goods tariffs but of passenger rates that will have to be applied in the post-war period. The present is the opportune time for that review of tariffs to take place. One last word. I should like again to register emphatically my protest against the railway passengers tax. It is out of place, it is contrary to the spirit of the Act, if not to the letter. It creates an undesirable precedent in regard to the finances of the Railway Administration in relation to those of the Central Exchequer. The tax is discriminatory as between railway users and non-railway users. It falls with increased severity upon the family man—

You are a year late.

It is felt more harshly and falls more heavily upon the people of the inland provinces, who should be able to get to the coast as economically as possible.

What we say today you say next year.

I do not want to labour the question. The Minister knows my views. I appal to him to endeavour to remove this tax which I regard as inequitable to the interests of those it affects.

I should be sorry to sound a somewhat jarring note after the dulcet tones we have heard from the hon. member who has just sat down in regard to the treatment of the railwaymen. I should like to ask the Minister whether it is true that quite recently a number of railwaymen comprising the crew of a train were all searched at Cape Town because a lady travelling on the train missed her jewel box. I understand that at the end of the search the men concerned were informed that the box had been found. I am informed on good authority this happened quite recently in Cape Town. It comes in the nature of a blow after one has heard about the almost millennium-conditions under which railwaymen are working today.

No lady ought to travel with a jewel box.

I suppose not; that seems to be proved by events. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the dissatisfaction that exists among the public in regard to the attitude of his Department towards the section who are most responsible for subversive activities in the Union; I refer to the Ossewabrandwag. The Minister, on a former occasion, as far back as 1942, showed himself very impatient of any who predicted that the O.B. would turn out to be a very michievous and dangerous body. He said, with some irritation, that he heard a great deal of nonsense talked about the O.B. I think it was the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) who was the offender, because he said that he hoped that the Minister’s optimism would not be proved to be misplaced, that is to say his optimism towards this section of the railway workers. I brought up that matter some little time afterwards. I entirely agreed with what had been said by the hon. member for Troyeville. I went further and said how the encouragement which the Minister bestowed on this organisation was now being reflected in the extraordinary conduct of some members of that body. In one centre at least members of that body, when they came before the court, admitted to having stolen certain moneys, but pleaded that they had stolen it for a good cause—for the Ossewabrandwag. On another occasion a sum something like £8,000 disappeared at Park Station, and as far as I could see the persons who were handling that money were the people chiefly to be suspected, but we have never heard from that day to this who really did get away with the money. At present there is the case of two mail bags containing coin and valuables to the value of £5,500, that have disappeared. I want to ask the Minister to direct his attention in most of the cases of this type to members of that particular organisation. They are a very enterprising body, and whenever they can lay their hands on anything of value and not be under observation, they take it. I want now to come to two specific cases, where men were charged in Durban with having divulged advanced shipping information to other persons. In one case there was an additional charge that the person accused had received payment for that information. The two persons were charged separately and they were both convicted, one on the first count of having given away information, the second on both counts, of having given away information and of having benefited from doing so. I want to know in common with many thousands of people in South Africa how it is possible for men accused of such a serious crime as this, to be let off so lightly. This crime was committed not long before the Llandaff Castle was torpedoed on our eastern coast, and the people who gave away that information were employed in Durban. I have been accustomed to believe we have a specially constituted court to try people charged with serious offences of a subversive character. It is, I believe, presided over by Mr. Justice Schreiner, and it is the court that provided an example to the other courts in Natal, in that it gave a fair trial and where the persons were convicted it gave a good substantial sentence. What was the position of the Railway Department? They brought these people before a board that had the lowest possible jurisdiction in the Union, a departmental disciplinary board, and with what result? As I have stated, the first accused who was convicted of divulging shipping information was fined £5, and within a fortnight he was back in his appointment as a marine signalman. That is a position in which observations in regard to shipping are bound to come his way, and in spite of having betrayed the trust imposed on him, he was returned to that employment.

Did you say that he was in the Ossewabrandwag?

Yes, I am referring to the accused; I would not think of referring to the Minister of being a member of the Ossewabrandwag. Then the second man was a berthing master. He was found guilty of both offences—of giving away information and of having been paid for it, and he received a similar sentence, a fine of £5, and within a fortnight he was back in his old job. I endeavoured last year to ascertain from the Minister what was being done in this case. Hon. members can scarcely forget the nature of the Minister’s replies. I would not for a moment say that they were given with parrot-like repetition, but the Minister gave five replies in answer to my question, all to the effect that the matter had not reached finality, “and I am unable to give the hon. member an answer”. Actually when the Minister said that in this House, it was after these people had been fined £5 and returned to their positions. He actually uttered that reply in this House after that sentence had been imposed on these men and they had been restored to their appointments, in which they can work further evil. Speaking of evil, I am reminded of the fact that the hon. the Minister said in this House that he was satisfied that there was no evil in the O.B. That, I am afraid, created enormous confidence in a body which was full of tricks.

Did you say “tricks”?

That is putting it very mildly. This body was a very long-sighted organisation, and when we have a Minister of the Crown knowing what most of us know about the efforts of this organisation, and saying there was no evil in it, we are astounded. I am certain of this, that nothing will shake his confidence in the O.B. in those circumstances. It reminds me of a statement I saw the other day in a book written by an authority on mental disorders, Dr. Forbes Winslow. He was dealing with various kinds of mental disorder prevailing amongst people who committed extraordinary crimes, and he mentioned that Jack the Ripper’s was a case of mental disorder. He indicated that was a man who committed eight murders, mutilating most of his victims, and he had never been detected or arrested by the police in Great Britain. The writer went on to say that he had traced the career of this man; he went to Australia, and there was subsequent information of’ a reliable character that he had come to South Africa and entered the service of the South African Railways. That takes our breath away. I venture to say if the Minister had had the portfolio at that time he would have come to the House and said: There is no evil in Jack the Ripper. In common with many thousands I desire to know how it is possible for the Minister first of all to divert the course of justice from the proper channels, and to have these people brought before a tribunal such as a disciplinary board. This board, that does not enjoy a very fine reputation in our province, fined the people charged with this crime £5 and told them to go in peace. I want to know how that is possible. These persons should, at the very least, have had ten years each; yet we have them escaping in this manner and making a laughing stock of the arrest and bringing derision on the fact that they were accused and found guilty of a serious offence of this kind. This reminds me of a case that occurred the other day in Pietermaritzburg. A person was constantly going to prison to visit one of the inmates, and he was asked by the minister what was the matter with his friend in the prison; had a crime been committed? The reply was: “No, Umsilikaas, no crime has been committed, but he has, what you white people call a bad record.” I should be inclined to say that as far as Parliament is concerned, the Minister bears the same reputation. He has allowed—I want to reply to the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen)—the chief officials of trade unions to be arrested by railway police under conditions in which there was no authority for arrest, and they had to be discharged. I want to know, amongst other things, how it comes about that the Railway Police can arrest for functions of this kind. I have always understood, and I have on one occasion read in this House a legal opinion to the effect that Railway Police in the proper sense of the word were merely watchmen over the property of the railways, that they had no authority to arrest for an offence outside that sphere. They should confine their activities to their own work.

They have even arrested the wrong man.

I believe that has occurred before now. We have railway policemen arresting trade union officials. We have railway policemen searching train crews, apparently without a warrant; we have railway policemen arresting people for subversive offences and taking them before a disciplinary body, instead of before the ordinary court. That, I think constitutes a grievance which we have a right to have explained by the Minister. I should like him to know that there is a great deal of indignation about the cases in Durban in which these people escaped with a paltry fine, arid were restored to their positions, where they will be able to repeat the offence of which they were guilty. In addition to that there was a case in the courts in Durban in which a railway official had been suspended by the Railway Department for an alleged offence, and had been ordered to appear before a disciplinary body. He objected and carried his appeal to the Minister on the ground that one of the members of that board had shown a bias in regard to this particular official. The Minister overruled the appeal, and he was obliged to go to the Supreme Court to press the point he had made that this man was certainly so biassed that he was not a fit occupant of the Disciplinary Board of Enquiry. When the Minister was called upon to show cause, he made no appearance in court. The position was that he intimated to the applicant that he would be willing to consent to a ruling that this man must not sit on the board. That was the position of the Minister representing the Government in Parliament and elsewhere and who set a bad example, in my opinion, to those of us who have to defer to the Supreme Court, and who always do so in whatever circumstances we may appear. I have had the mortification of being censured by the Supreme Court quite recently on grounds, the justice of which I should be prepared to deny in this House. But the Minister did not even enter an appearance. Surely that was very disrespectful to the Supreme Court? He merely intimated that he consented to judgment.

The Minister of Transport is practically never out of the courts.

The Minister merely intimated that he consented to the judgement. It surely would have been courteous to have been represerited in court. To have indicated that the Minister had considered the matter and that he was willing to meet the complaint that had been made in this or that way. I can assure you that the light in which he appeared in that case, was not at all one which gained a great deal of support from the public, The public deplored that the Minister should have merely sent word to the applicant to say that he consented to the judgment without going near the court, without doing the court the courtesy of entering an appearance and making his bow to the court in the approved method. I want to say that there is a grave danger on the part of any Minister in either fawning upon or pampering to the Ossewabrandwag. Those of us who have read the decisions at the Yalta Conference must, all of us, find a responsive feeling of approval in our hearts for what was said there, that as far as we are concerned, Nazism should disappear from our country. But what is the position here? Side by side with that we have the publication of a tractive document of this kind in the name of the Ossewabrandwag, in which they tell us that the aim of an election is to have one party and to forbid the existence of other parties. If that is so, we are closer to Nazism in this country than we shall ever be in our time. If an election resulted in the victory of this particular organisation or combination, we should then have a body to which everybody was compelled to belong because the law of the land required it. No person will be allowed to belong to any other party, and we shall be back to the condition which led to this war. It is no use deluding ourselves by saying that there is no evil in the Ossewabrandwag. In view of what we know, that would be ridiculous. It is not only ridiculous but positively dangerous, and I hope that Ministers of the Crown will not fritter away their valuable time, for which they are well paid, by making statements of this kind in the future, statemets that do no credit to the intelligence of the House and which do not reflect a devotion to the interests of the country. I hope that we have heard the last of this phrase that the Minister coined, namely, that there is no evil in the Ossewabrandwag.

The hon. Minister can certainly say: “God protect me against my friends”. Two of his friends, the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) and the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) got up to protect and to defend him. One can expect it of the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside), a man who thinks he is always right, a man with a superiority complex which is not justified, who speaks of other people’s speeches as “futile”, when he does not even know what was said, because he does not understand the language. One can expect that from him. An amendment has now been introduced by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) which I rise to support. These two speakers, one being a front-bencher of the United Party and the other a retired railway official, specially got up to squash the amendment. But what did they really say.

Nothing.

Both of them thanked and praised the railway officials for the work they had done. But we say the same thing. That has nothing to do with the amendment. We admit that the railway officials have done good work, and under difficult circumstances, We admit it and we are grateful for it. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member who has just sat down tried to besmirch them, we are proud of the work they have done. But that has nothing to do with the amendment. It is nothing but a red herring which those hon. members are dragging across the trail. Certain accusations were levelled against the management, and not a single member on that side refuted it. The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside), without having investigated the matter, said: “We are going to vote against the amendment, because when this side introduced such a motion, you said it was not necessary”. In other words, he admits that this position exists, but he says they have a majority at present and they are going to vote the amendment down; they are going on with their roguish tricks; they are going to promote people who do not deserve promotion; they are going to continue to take steps which cause racialism because they are in the position to out-vote this side. What does the hon. member for Roodepoort say? He says: “Yes, that may be true, but what I want is this. In 1924 when the Nationalist Party got into power, we also asked that there should be an investigation into the promotions which were made at that time, and you did not accede to that request”. In other words, “it is quite correct; we are today promoting English-speaking persons over the heads of Afrikaans-speaking persons, because the Nationalist Goverment, when they were in power, did the same thing in connection with Afrikaans-speaking persons.

I rise on a point of explanation. I do not think I said anything of that kind. I simply said if an enquiry took place, it should cover the period back to 1924, that a Select Committee was not the most suitable committee to enquire into the position with a view to ascertaining the exact facts.

The hon. member may possibly think that I am a greenhorn, but I am not so green that I cannot realise that he wants to go back to 1924, because that is the year when the Nationalist Party came to power. I want to tell the hon. mem ber that I do not believe that the Nationalist Party promoted people undeservedly. I can well understand that in 1924, when the Nationalist Party assumed office, there was such a muddle in every department of the public service that they were obliged to push some people ahead. I can quite understand that, but people were not promoted because they were Afrikaans-speaking; they were promoted because they had the brains and the intelligence. Can my hon. friend say the same thing? Here we have the position that the Assistant Manager of Airways receives in remuneration a few hundred pounds more than the manager. Have they tried to justify that? We are waiting to hear what the Minister has to say about this. We can only tell him that there has been talk on this matter, ouside the House. At least half a dozen people in the town have mentioned it to me. The Minister may have a reason, and if it is a good well-founded reason we shall be prepared to listen to him. But the point I want to make clear is this. Both hon. members stood up to defend the Minister, and actually they know the position of affairs. One admitted that by saying: You should also investigate the promotions that were made in 1924. The other said: We are going to vote against it because when in 1924 we introduced a similar motion against the Leader of the Opposition you voted against it. In other words, they are afraid of an investigation. They do not want to have an enquiry.

We are all afraid.

Yes, you are all afraid. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) stands up here and talks of a strong protest that he now wishes to register against the 15 per cent. tax. But he had the opportunity to vote against it and he voted in favour of it. Now he comes to the House and he wants to make a serious protest. All these arguments have previously been employed in this House. He had his opportunity then. It has taken him a year or more to understand what the position really is.

Does he understand it even now?

The position is absolutely clear that these two friends in their wisdom, now agree that what we say is right; there ought to be an investigation; but for absolutely different reasons they will not vote for it. At the outset I said that the Minister might, well exclaim: “God save me from my friends!” Here a Government supporter has risen and spoke very badly of the Minister in connection with the O.B. I am not here to defend the O.B. or to protect it, but it seems to me so unnecessary to mention the matter, because the Government, is at the moment, not opposed to the O.B. I must say that at the time I admired the Minister when he said that, because when a man wants to kill another political party he shows by that that he is afraid of it. But suddenly all the criminals are members of the Ossewabrandwag, and the only reason for them being the culprits is that they are Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners.

Are you a supporter of the O.B.?

I am not a supporter of the Ossewabrandwag, but I believe in justice. The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) posed here as a businessman. He first read what the Minister had stated and then his attention was directed to a later speech in which it was said that the railways really lost through the policy of allowing soldiers to travel at half fare. Then he said: “Let us assume there is a loss; if there is a loss then the general public have to pay for it. Why can the railways not pay for it?” He says it is no loss. I maintain that if the railways carry passengers during the war they must do it according to our constitution. There is no justification for the policy that they are following today. The man who travels on the railways should pay for that, and the man who sends his goods by rail must pay for it so that the soldiers can travel at half price. But why the general public? Why cannot the soldiers pay the full fare and if there is a loss it can be met from the General Treasury? But the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) says that is not necessary. He says he is against the 15 per cent. because it only taxes the persons who use the railways. I fail to see why the matter cannot be investigated, and if they do not want to have it investigated it shows that they realise there is something wrong. Why should only those who use the railways pay the tax so that the soldiers may travel at a cheaper rate? That is not all. The hon. member for Sunnyside—Sunnyboy—says: “Surely you do not want to suggest that other persons should suffer inconvenience because the soldiers are travelling on the trains?” Shortly after that the hon. member for Roodeport got up and said: “We cannot book accommodation today, we have to stand in a queue to get a railway ticket.” He knows just as well as I do what discomfort the members of the public have to endure. Soldiers travel every weekend to Cape Town. They travel just for pleasure; if they had to pay the full fare they would not do so. During the war period there has been a shortage of coaches. Some of the coaches running on the Garden Route almost appear to have come out of Noah’s Ark. Why are those old coaches being used today? Because there is too much traffic. If people had to pay the full fare they would not travel around so much. It is because these people travel unnecessarily that the public cannot obtain any facilities. Consequently I cannot understand how the hon. member can protest against the proposal in this way. It appears to me to be a reasonable motion. It does not seem to me that any objection can be raised to it. It will not cost the State anything to appoint a select committee to investigate the matter. The select committee is appointed from members of this House. They can call for documents and hear evidence. It is, of course, a very serious complaint when it is said that the employees in the railway service have worked on behalf of all sorts of funds and that the time occupied by them on this work has been recorded against other work. A person who does that sort of thing in private life goes to gaol, and this is such a serious charge that the Minister ought to give his attention to it. I do not say the Minister knows about this. I do not say that he should be acquainted with everything that is going on in the railways. But he should be just as anxious as we are to find out whether there is ground for this complaint. Surely it is serious when it is stated that the morale of the workers has been lowered owing to them being obliged to make false records by senior officers—misleading and inaccurate entries—I take it with the object of making the funds for which they work a success, and to get as much out of it as possible. Consequently if I was in the Minister’s place I would have a commission of enquiry appointed. If matters are as stated by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood)—he quoted figures—then it seems to me it is so serious that a select committee ought to be appointed, even if it is the select committee that sits on railway affairs. But there should be someone to investigate the facts and to bring the facte to the notice of the Minister. I do not believe that the Minister would have allowed it if he were acquainted with what was going on. I do not know whether the General Manager of Railways knows about it, but there is someone serving under him but who is over the employees against whom the complaints are being made, and it is not right as regards these people because stories are now circulating that they are forcing them to make false returns regarding the time that has been taken up. It seems to me that nothing can put the matter right unless the Minister refers it for enquiry to a select committee which can either absolve these people, or find them blameworthy. I think it is necessary for the morale and the smooth working of the railways. That is all I want to say over this amendment. There are, however, a few other matters that I should like to bring up. Usually the Railway Estimates fall under discussion during the last few days, and then we are not in a position to bring up these matters, and consequently I want to take advantage of this opportunity to do so. I should like to ask the Minister what has become of the report of the committee that was appointed to make enquiry into the wages and working conditions of foremen on the main line. I have been informed that in consequence of the report overtime is now being paid to these men. I would prefer to see enough foremen so that it would not be necessary for these men to have to work overtime. I would prefer to see three shifts instead of two, so that the men could remain eight hours on duty instead of twelve. But I realise that there is a shortage of staff owing to the war. I want to ask the Minister whether he will be prepared at a later stage to go so far as to arrange that three eighthour shifts may be worked instead of two twelve-hour shifts. It can only end in trouble if the foremen have to work twelve hours at a stretch. These men are there to give trains the right of way. It is important work and should an accident occur and one of the foremen have failed in his duty and the matter came into court, it would I think constitute a fairly good excuse if it came to the knowledge of the court that the man had to work twelve hours. Now I come to other branch lines, for example, a line that ought to be a main line, the line to Port Elizabeth, the Garden Route which is virtually a main line and serves as a main line.

It ought to be a main line.

It serves at the moment as a main line, but it is regarded as a branch line. I understand that the foremen on that line still have to work twelve hours a day. I understand also that they get no extra payment for the work. Now I want to ask the Minister, what difference does it make if the man has to keep awake how many trains are signalled through, whether four trains or twenty-four go through. The position is just the same. Why is overtime not paid to these men? Then I would like to know this from the Minister. I understand that the monetary privileges that the railway workers formerly enjoyed have been withdrawn with the increase of the salary. Some of the railway officials have said to me: “Yes, we have now got an increase, but those financial benefits that we previously had have been withdrawn, so that actually we do not receive anything more.” They have to contribute more to various funds and such like things and their income has in reality been reduced. I want to know why that sort of increase should be made. Here the man receives a bigger salary, but his disbursements are more, and his financial privileges have been withdrawn, so that he is really worse off than before. It was interesting to listen to the Minister’s address about the future of aviation, but I should like to know this from the Minister. What has Mr. John Martin to do with the matter? Why was John Martin asked to represent us? Has he any special knowledge of aviation? That has not been stated, but I assume it is the John Martin who is President of the Chamber of Mines, and if that is so I want to know if he is working without remuneration. We cannot expect that a man in the position of Mr. John Martin would do anything for nothing. If he does not receive any financial payment is it possible that he receives payment in some other form? I should like to know why he has been sent as the country’s representative? Apart from his knowledge of mines and his wealth and so forth—I assume that he will have influence with the world’s wealthy people—what special knowledge has he of aviation and of aircraft? Is it not possible that he was responsible for the failure of the international conference. I want to admit quite frankly that I know very little about aviation. I have travelled by air once or twice, and that is all. But I cannot understand why people in other countries really need us now. Perhaps the only country that really needs us is the Argentine, though even the Argentine does not really need us, because there are other routes which it can follow. I should like to know from the Minister exactly what privileges we can confer on other countries, and then I would be in a better position to judge whether it is best in the position in which we stand, for South Africa to confine itself to the air service in Africa, or whether we should try to go further. If we are unable to arrive at an agreement with the European countries we shall, of course, not be able to fly over those countries. I should like to know what our position is in that connection. I assume that the Minister of Transport has all the information in his possession in connection with that matter. However, in his speech he did not impart to us the history of this matter. He simply told us that there was another conference. What happened there we do not know. Furthermore, he said that they had now convened the States of the British Commonwealth to go further into the matter. But if we in Africa want to open an air route between Cape Town and Cairo it means that we shall, for instance, have to fly over Abyssinia, and also over the territory of other European countries. What chance have we of settling this if those people do not enter into an agreement with us? Apparently they have not been invited to the conference. Consequently we should like to know from the Minister why this conference is of a local character, why it only applies to certain countries in Africa, and whether he is going to make it of an international nature. I should very much like to have that information, because then we would be in a better position to judge on this matter. Then I should like to join other hon. members in the call they have made on the Minister in connection with the lower paid labourers. Although an increase has been granted to them, I feel that still more assistance can be granted them. I may inform the Minister that the wage that he at present pays the native is less than what the farmer is obliged at present to pay that native. The Minister consequently cannot complain that the farmers do not pay that wage. As far as concerns the coloured people, they receive a somewhat better wage, which is about the same as what the farmers pay. But there are factories that pay more. I want to add that I would prefer to see the natives retained in their own territories as far as the railways are concerned, and the Europeans doing, the work and receiving a wage which would furnish them with a reasonable subsistence.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) is not in his place because I was very interested in his remarks in referring to the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) speaking about who is the Minister with dulcet tones. Apparently it is very much out of favour to pay any tribute to the Minister of Railways or the organisation under his control, but with regard to the hon. member for Pinetown I think it is very fortunate for him that he was not born a member of one of the native tribes, because undoubtedly he would have been appointed as chief smeller-out in that particular tribe, and I am very much surprised that the hon. Minister of Justice has not found a job which would suit him.

He has got that job now.

Sir, the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) also takes exception to the utterances of the hon. member for Roodepoort and the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) and in his very facetious way hee refers to the hon. member for Sunnyside as sonny boy. To follow his own lines I would like to say that I have never seen a representative so well fitted to represent a constituency with a name like Swellendam as the hon. member himself. He surely is a very appropriate representative for that constituency.

That is a joke.

Do not laugh too much or else you might strain your nervous system. Now, you know that both the hon. member for Swellendam and some of the other hon. members on that side of the House are slightly aggrieved that the two previous speakers on this side of the House did not deal with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. Haywood). In the first place I hardly know how they expect the hon. members to deal with the charges made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein in his amendment. In my opinion that amendment can only be dealt with adequately by the Minister himself ….

Or by the commission.

He is fully conversant with the facts and he, I am sure, can give an answer to these charges contained in the amendment which at least will satisfy the majority of the members of this House.

I do not think for one moment that he will satisfy hon. members on that side of the House because as usual they are not prepared to be content with a reasonable explanation, either with regard to railway matters or any other matter which pertains to the running of this House. But, Sir, despite the displeasure with which the congratulations of the Minister and the Administration are looked upon on that side of the House, I want to add my mead of congratulation to the Minister and to his Administration for the admirable work that they have done during the war years, work which deserves every credit not only from members on this side of the House, but from members of the Nationalist Party, because 80 per cent. of the European personnel of the railways are Afrikaans-speaking people, and they should receive a mead of praise from their own people who claim to be their only friends in this House. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), speaking of the two previous speakers, said that the Minister should say “God save us from our friends”, but I want to say that if the hon. members on that side regard themselves as friends of the railway workers, the latter in their turn should say “God save us from our friends”. I also, possibly to the regret of my hon. friends over there, do not propose to deal with the amendment. The matter which concerns me is the additional estimates and what they may mean to the Railway Administration and its system. In the first place I want to refer to that hardy annual, the regrading of the Midland main line. It does not need any words of mine to convince the hon. Minister of the necessity for this work. I know the difficulties with which he is confronted in expediting that work, but on the other hand, if one remains silent, and says nothing, it is apt to be taken for granted that one is perfectly satisfied with what has been done, and with regard to the regrading of the Midland main line, dozens of people in Port Elizabeth are not satisfied. They feel that this matter should be further expedited. It is of great moment to the commercial and industrial circles of Port Elizabeth that the regrading of that line should be expedited as far as possible, because in the post-war period it will play an important part in the development of Port Elizabeth and in assisting it to develop its business, industrial and commercial. And when one thinks of how the Eastern line, from East London, has progressed I feel that we, with our greater volume of business in Port Elizabeth, are entitled to greater consideration than we have yet received. Then I want to deal with another matter which is exercising the minds not only of business people in Port Elizabeth but also of municipal authorities and the ordinary man in the street. When the General Manager of railways was in Port Elizabeth on the 10th January the municipality put before him a scheme of reclamation for the foreshore which, if accepted, will add another 300 feet of width to the front of Port Elizabeth. Now, those of the hon. members of this House who know Port Elizabeth know that we have not very much scope for expansion and development between the hill and the sea and another 300 feet would make a tremendous difference to our development. I know the scheme is being put forward but I am not prepared to accept the views of municipal engineers. A scheme of that nature in my opinion requires the considered opinion of marine engineers, and I would suggest to the hon. Minister that he and his advisers should call in the best marine advice that they can obtain and decide whether that scheme is feasible and possible. He knows better than I do the advantages which the Railway Administration itself would receive from that additional 300 feet of ground. I am told that with a new lay-out for the new station and with administrative offices and various other changes which it is proposed to make when this takes place, it will be a more congested area still. I know that if a further scheme of reclamation is undertaken it means delay. That will be unavoidable. I know the conditions pertaining in the railway station and offices at the present time. The least said about them the soonest mended, but I am very positive of this that each and every one concerned with that side of the question would be prepared to wait for a better lay-out if the scheme is a workable one. But I want to impress upon the Minister the necessity of coming to a decision and getting the best advice, so that whatever we do, whether we decide to carry it out or whether we decide that the proposition is not feasible, I think that a decision should be arrived at. I would like to point out to the Minister that the firm which carried out the reclamation in Cape Town has the necessary plant and is not too fully occupied at present, and if it is possible to carry out the scheme I think that the firm in question would readily grasp the opportunity of performing the work. Then there is another point I want to put to the Minister. He will remember that a deputation waited upon him last week in connection with the Avontuur railway—changing it from a narrow gauge to a broad gauge. If our new scheme of reconstruction takes place, with our station and other amenities, I do not think it would be very nice to have a narrow gauge railway entering into one side of it and a broad gauge at the other end. I would suggest that it might be possible, as a first instalment of the broad gauge Avontuur line, to carry it as far as Humansdorp. That would certainly be something much appreciated by the users of the line, not only as regards Humansdorp but also, I think, on the rest of the Avontuur line, because it would make them feel that the first step has been taken, and the others would automatically follow. I hope that the Minister will, in his reply, give me and the House some idea of his views upon the subject. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to a more congenial topic. I want to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) which he made last Tuesday. One would have thought that when a frontbencher of the Opposition opens an attack that he would deal with railway policy, but apparently he was marking time for the big gun which was fired today in moving an amendment to this particular vote. The hon. member for Beaufort West was apparently very much more concerned with flinging mud at the Minister of Lands in the hope that some of it would stick than he was with railway policy. It was most amusing to sit here and listen to the hon. member for Beaufort West working up his case on one side of the evidence, acting as judge and jury, but leaving the sentence for someone else. What about the other side of this particular business? Is the railway purchasing this water at a loss or at a profit? Is it purchasing this water from the hon. the Minister of Lands because it wants to benefit him or because it wants to benefit the railway system? That is the question to be decided. Has it got supplies of water adequate for railway purposes in that particular area or not. The hon. member for Beaufort West did not tell us that side of the question. He did intimate that the contract was entered into with the railways not by the Minister of Lands as such, but by Senator Conroy, but he did not tell us that the original contracts were entered into by the I.C.S. and that the land, with its water rights, was sold to Senator. Conroy before he became Minister of Lands. He did not tell us that Senator Conroy, before he became Minister, entered into that contract with the railways for a 15 years’ lease. He did not give us that side of the story at all. Neither did he explain to us what Senator Conroy should have done when he was appointed Minister of Lands. Should he have broken his contract with the railways and laid himself open to legal proceedings, or what? He did not explain that side at all, but what he did do, and that was the most interesting thing in his remarks that afternoon, was that he took as a standard of Parliamentary honesty and probity the Brititsh House of Commons. To me that was the amazing thing. I have sat here for the last nine years and I have heard the harshest things said about Britain, its Parliament and everything pertaining to the British Commonwealth by almost every member on the other side.

But you cannot even understand what we say.

Yet on Tuesday afternoon we found the member for Beaufort. West paying tribute to the British House of Commons.

There is the good in the worst of us you know.

Another thing which interested me whilst the hon. member was making his remarks was that I was looking across to the other side of the House and I observed the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) smiling, and the thought which crossed my mind was this: I wonder if the hon. member for Wolmaransstad remembers the 28th February, 1939, when similar attacks were made upon him, most slanderous attacks by the hon. gentlemen on that side of the House. There are one or two of them in their seats at the moment.

On a point of order. Is the hon. member in order in accusing one member of making a scandalous attack on another member?

He said slanderous, not scandalous.

Is that correct?

The hon. member may continue.

I am asking you to decide a point of order. You have not said whether the hon. member may use slanderous language.

That expression may be used.

Then why did the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson) use such slanderous language in this House? Only a slanderer uses slanderous, language.

I am not using slanderous language. I am only quoting from what took place in this House on 28th February, 1939, and if the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has a short memory I would suggest to him that he reads up that particular passage in Hansard, and if he does not agree with me the only conclusion I can come to is that he is very biassed towards his own side of the House. In my opinion, if that attack was made upon me I would never forgive the people who made it because I would regard it as an attempt to stain my character and I, for one will never forgive a man if he attempts to lay a stain on my character without proper foundation. That is how I would feel if I were the Minister of Lands and the victim of an attack by the hon. member for Beaufort West. I would never forgive him.

Ever since I have been in this House I have found myself compelled by circumstances, year after year, to protest against the wages and other conditions applicable to non-Europeans in the railway service. From time to time voices which emanated from these benches have found themselves in the position of being supported by hon. members of other political parties. I wish to pay a tribute to the hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Miles-Cadman) for the speech which he made in this House this morning, a speech in which he put clearly before the House and the Minister the major grievances at the present time of the African and coloured and other non-European railway workers. To put forward these criticisms at this particular moment is not to detract at all from the improvements that have been made, particularly with regard to wage conditions, during the last few years. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) referred to them this afternoon and I wish to make it quite clear, on behalf of myself and others who sit on these benches, that what this particular Minister of Railways has done in this direction is appreciated. The figures given by the hon. member for Roodepoort were quite correct and the Minister of Railways has a very considerable record in this regard, particularly if compared with the regime of his predecessor, Mr. Pirow. Mr. Pirow, as Minister of Railways, always showed what I can only describe as savage hostility towards the claims of the non-European workers. I have used language of that nature when he sat in this House and the fact that he is not here now does not detract from the fact that that is so. When the hon. Minister of Railways took office he found conditions prevailing which were far worse than in any other section of the Government service, as far as the unskilled workers were concerned, far worse than those generally prevailing in private industry, far worse than they would have been if a more reasonable Minister had held the reins of office during the years when those reins were held by Mr. Pirow. There were therefore considerable arrears to be made up as regards the conditions of these workers. In 1941 there was a certain increase of wages amongst the very lowest paid of the non—

I mention these things more particularly, because it will be my duty later to submit to the House that despite them all is still not well so far as unskilled workers are concerned. I mention these factors in order that the Minister may not get the impression that we on these benches are unmindful of the progress that has been made. Before I refer to wages, and other conditions of service, I want to deal with certain aspects of the Minister’s proposal to recognise staff associations among the non-European workers. We have always contended for the principle of collective bargaining between employer and worker, whatever the race or the colour of the worker may be. That is the basis of the claim which we on these benches have for years put forward for the recognition of the trade union rights of African workers in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, and I want to welcome the acceptance by the Minister of the principle of collective barganing so far as the nonEuropean workers on the railways are concerned, irrespective of their race. I read with interest a speech delivered by the Minister to a conference on non-European railway workers convened by him in Johannesburg last year in the month of September. In that speech the Minister laid down, in broad outline, the conditions under which he stated he was prepared to recognise staff associations comprised of non-European workers. The details of those conditions, he stated to be a matter of negotiation between himself and the workers, negotiations presumably with such workers’ existing organisations. I take it that is what the Minister had in mind, because otherwise there would be no one on the workers’ side to negotiate with as to the recognition of staff associations. The Minister made it clear in that speech that it was not his intention in any way to debar existing organisations from recognition as staff associations, and that the work of organisation naturally fell to be performed by representatives of the workers themselves. There is only one aspect of the proposals which the Minister made about which I am sorry, and that is he seemed rather to close the door against recognition of one association representing non-European unskilled workers of the whole Union. He stated it had been definitely decided to recognise only system organisations, each organisation or union that would be recognised to limit its activities to each particular system. It may be, and I do not want to contest it for a moment, that there is not an organisation at the present moment which the Minister or his advisers feel is sufficiently representative of the interests of the whole of the non-European staff in the whole of the Union to be accorded recognition as a national staff association at the present time. I cannot contest that. But if this machinery the Minister outlined at the conference is accepted, and if the consultative body he proposes should act as a sort of liaison between the various system organisations will result in the utilisation of that machinery to build up a national union and if it should be proved later that it is possible to bring into operation a national organisation of the whole of the non-European unskilled workers, I can see no reason why that organisation should not be recognised as a national association in the same way as national organisations are recognised as far as European workers are concerned. I hope I have misinterpreted the Minister’s remarks, but I read them as closing the door against recognition of a national non-European staff association. I hope that the Minister will be able to correct me on that point, but that is as I read his remarks. I understand that that was the main difference which arose between him and the largest of the existing non-European railway unions before the conference actually met; the South African non-European Railways and Harbours Workers Union, which enjoys registration under the Industrial Conciliation Act had, I understand certain negotiations with the Minister before this conference, and according to the statement of the Minister at the conference this body was unwilling to cooperate in the scheme that he put forward, and therefore he stated that he could not have any further negotiations with it. As I have stated, and as I understand from some facts I have at my disposal, the difference between the Minister and this organisation was mainly that the Minister appeared to be closing the door against the recognition of a national union. I believe, also, there was some impression upon the minds of the representatives of this organisation that the Minister would only recognise unions which were racial in character, representing African employees of the railways, coloured, Indian and so forth. That, of course, we know is a misunderstanding. The Minister made it quite clear at the conference that it is for the workers themselves to decide whether they wished to organise on sectional lines or on the basis of the work they do, following ordinary trade union principles. So the main difference seems to be this question of system recognition as opposed to national recognition. I believe there were other differences also, but those were matters that seemed to be rather matters of detail. I think it is a pity that at so early a stage in the attempt to try out this new system of representation, based on collective bargaining, a definite break should have come between the Minister, and at all events the largest of the non-European railway unions. I understand the paid up membership of that body is 8,000; that may not be very large out of the staff total of nearly 60,000, but at the same time it is the largest organisation which exists. Many years were required to build it up, not only under the present leadership but under the previous office bearers, as the Minister knows. The Minister has for many years met the representatives of this union on many occasions and has negotiated with them on conditions in the railway service. I am not now attempting in any way to apportion blame to either side as to why this break between the Minister and this organisation occurred on the ground that the Minister stated in the conference they refused to co-operate. I am only expressing the view that it is a pity that it should be so, and I feel that if the Minister were prepared to modify the condition that only system associations should be recognised, to the extent that if in future an organisation became sufficiently representative, through the coming together on federal lines of these various system organisations to represent the whole non-Eourpean staff, then he would consider the recognition of a national association, the breach might be healed. I want to deal, however, with another aspect of this matter, which is to my mind a serious one, and which may interefere very much with the foundation of this new system of collective bargaining and representation. I am proposing now to put before the Minister statements that are being made amongst the non-European railway staff of a sufficiently serious character to warrant an investigation. I am not not vouching for the accuracy of these statements. I am merely saying these are the statements that are being made, and the fact that they are being made requires some investigation. In effect, what they come to is this. It is being stated that certain officers of the Railway Administration, mostly I think welfare officers, are themselves taking part in the formation of staff associations. The Minister I am quite certain will agree with me that that would not be a proper course, and is certainly not what he intended. It is quite clear from the speech he made at the conference that was not his intention, in putting forward these proposals, that staff associations should be formed by officials of the Railway Administration. He made it clear they should be formed by the workers themselves and should include existing unions. This allegation that officials of the Administration are themselves furthering the formation of staff associations, and in some cases that pressure is being brought to bear on non-European workers to join staff associations, and allegations of that kind should be cleared up by the Minister. Otherwise they will imperil the scheme. In a word, it is alleged there is a move amongst some of the Minister’s officials to form what is known in labour and trade union circles as a company union, that is to say a union not formed by the workers but by the employers. I put it to the Minister that such statements have been circulated among the non-European staff. If these statements are not true they should, after proper investigation, be exposed. If they are true steps should be taken to prevent the continuance of these practices. In a memorandum I have here which I expect the Minister has seen, it is stated—

That, as I say is a serious statement to make. It is stated further in the same memorandum—

I want to draw the Minister’s attention particularly to that last passage, because if this is correct it is in direct opposition to what he said at the conference, which was that existing unions if they complied with the conditions laid down would be recognised as staff associations. The gravamen of the allegations is not that conditions have been laid down under which workers can obtain collective bargaining facilities. What is stated is that unions are actually being formed by the administration’s officials, and that men who are in existing organisations, which may not have complied with the conditions for recognition as staff associations, are told—and they have pressure to bear on them—to join the staff associations. I have had telegrams sent to me from Worcester and from Durban in the last few days, protesting against this intimidation, and I shall read them out—

I know that these telegrams have also been sent to other members of the House. I am told that non-European members of the Railway Police have been told to leave the union to which they have belonged, on the ground of a certain staff regulation, but I am further told they can belong to a recognised staff associaation. I can understand members of the police not being allowed to join a trade union, but if a policeman is not allowed to join a trade union then he shall not be allowed to join any trade union. But according to the complaints that have been made to me they are allowed to join recognised staff associations, but not other unions. As 1 have indicated, these are statements that are being spread around amongst the South African Railways and Harbours non-European staff. They do not bear out the Minister’s proposals as made at the conference in September, in which he laid down the conditions under which he would recognise non-Eourpean unions. I put these matters before the Minister, because I think he should know of them, and I think they ought to be investigated. If officers of his department are contrary to what he said at the conference, organising unions themselves or brining pressure to bear on the workers to join the unions, I think he should put a stop to it. If they are not doing that, that should be made publicly known to the nonEuropean railway staff. In this connection I want to say that it appears to have been unfortunate that some two years ago the Minister appointed an ex-officer of the Native Affairs Department to recommend a form of staff association for nonEuropeans. However excellent he may have been in his administrative duties in the Native Affairs Department, he was not the type of man with the experience required for the type of investigation which was asked of him. I refer, of course, to the investigation made by Col. Fyfe King. None of us here made any remarks on the matter when he was appointed, because we did not want to prejudice the investigation. But during these investigations I had complaints brought to me by non-European railway workers to the effect that Col. Fyfe King was addressing meetings of these workers, and advising them to leave any organisations they belonged to, and to form a new organisation, giving the impression, at all events, that it was to be under his auspices. I have had continuous reports of that character, and I believe the South African Trades and Labour Council also took up the matter. What I feel is this, that Col. Fyfe King could not have been doing what was expected of him. He was not a man whose experience was such as to fit him for the type of investigation he was asked to conduct, and he said things at meetings of these nonEuropean workers that he addressed all over the country, which would tend to make them feel that the staff association idea was the sort of thing that Col. Fyfe King was talking to them about. I hope, therefore, that the Minister in this House, or on any other occasion that he thinks appropriate, will make it clear that what he proposed at the conference in September was not the kind of thing which the complaints that have been made regarding Col. Fyfe King have given the workers the impression was the type of representation that was intended for them. I hope I have made this position clear. I have no doubt at all from the speech the Minister made at the September conference that he wishes to see among the non-European railway workers, a form of trade unionism and a system of collective bargaining between themselves and the Railway Department substantially the same as is already functioning amongst other grades of workers. If that is his intention, I do hope he will consent to the holding of an investigation into these allegations that have been made for the purpose of seeing that that intention is being carried out, or, if it is being carried out at the present time, of making the position clear to the non-European railway staff. Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word of a more general character about conditions in the railway service. As the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) said this afternoon, and as I stated at an earlier stage, there is no doubt about it that the minimum wages of unskilled workers have considerably improved, but we still have this system under which these vast discriminations exist between the wages of the unskilled workers on the different systems. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman) gave examples this morning, comparing the basic minimum wages applicable on the Cape Western system with those on the Cape Northern system. The big disparity that exists does not rest on any scientific basis, as for instance a difference in cost of living as between Cape Town and Kimberley. It is not a question of workers of one race being paid more than workers of another race. These wage rates are irrespective of the race of the worker, and there would be no justification for making a discrimination in the wage rates of workers on racial grounds. The minimum requirements of the worker are the same irrespective of his race, and I would like to see a levelling up of these low wages paid on systems in the North to at least the Cape level. I am not saying the Cape level is adequate, but there should be an unskilled wage applicable to the whole of the railways on grounds of justice and public policy. Discrimination between one locality and another can only be justified when there is a difference in the cost of living. I want to reinforce what the hon. member for Durban (North) has said—and I hope I shall have the Minister’s attention here—I want to reinforce what the hon. member said on the subject of the grading of non-European labour. It is a shame, and I want to ask the Minister whether he does not agree it a shame that a man who has been in the railway service for 24 years can be dismissed on 24 hours’ notice; and yet that is the position at the present time. I know men who have been over 20 years in the railway service. They have lived through all the injustices of Mr. Pirow’s regime. They have lived through the depression, and they are still in the railways, and yet they are still subject to dismissal on 24 hours’ notice. They are still casual labourers. How can a man who has been in the service for years be designated as a casual labourer? How can a man who works every day in the week be described as a casual labourer? The Wage Board determinations lay down that the casual labourer is somebody who does not work more than two or three days in the same week for the same employer, and yet men who have worked every day for years for the same Administration are classed as casual labourers, and can be dismissed on 24 hours’ notice. That may mean a loss of pension rights, and it may mean that such increments as they have earned after years of service, are gone; and if they rejoin again later they do not get their increments back. I do feel that this system is unjust, and that the Minister should now—particularly as he has instituted a pension system and as he has expressed himself prepared to recognise non-European workers on the basis that they are members of the public service—that he should now entrench the rights of these men. Regular casuals should become ordinary public servants and should only be dismissed on the same grounds as any other workers in the public service can be dismissed. The Minister should reduce the category of the so-called redundant casuals to the very smallest limit possible, and the grade of intermittent casuals, that work at the docks, should be done away with. Full-time men should be employed. Casual labour is one of the most fruitful sources of wasted labour, and it is in the national interest for the railways to set an example to other employers by dispensing with casual labour. The present conditions are not calculated to make men who have been long years in the service satisfied with their conditions of service, or loyal to their service. And, Mr. Speaker, I also want to appeal to the Minister to go more carefully into the question of the categories, apart from the category of casual workers, of non-European workers. There are many African and coloured workers doing jobs which are operatives’ jobs and not labourers’ jobs. They are still classed as casual labourers. I know that as the result of the report of a Departmental Committee of Enquiry some years ago these men are now given better wages, but the amount of pay they get extra is very little over and above what the ordinary labourer gets. I think the highest paid class of worker of this category gets 1s. a day extra, and many get only 3d. or 6d. extra. I knew some men in one of the railway workshops whom the artisan they worked under told me are doing practically artisans’ work. In a private concern which is subject to the determinations of the Wage Board these men would be classed as operatives, at least, and would get a wage considerably in excess, about 30 per cent. in excess of the unskilled labourers’ wages. But these men were getting 3d. a day extra for doing what is practically artisans’ work. As a matter of fact, in that particular case, the Administration started by paying them 6d. a day extra and some months afterwards they said they had made a mistake and should have only paid 3d. and would the men please pay back the extra 3d. I do not mention this for that particular reason but what I do say is that the work done by the African and coloured labourers requires to be regraded, as much of it is not labourers’ work at all. It is semi-skilled work and the men should be paid wages accordingly. There is one final matter I wish to mention, namely, that the Minister has applied the provisions of the Factories Act to the railways, but with certain discriminations in the case of nonEuropean labourers. Under the Factories Act, every worker must get at least two weeks’ leave a year. In the case of the railways coloured workers get two weeks, but native workers only one week. What is the sense of a petty discrimination of that kind? There is no difference in the standard of living as between coloured and native workers which justifies the one being allowed one week’s leave and the other two weeks. If anything, the native labourer would require more because very often his family is a considerable distance from where he works. I appeal to the Minister that as regards this matter, at all events, he should do away with the discrimination and concede to the native unskilled worker the same conditions that the Factories Act lays down, which is enjoyed by workers in private employment, and which is applied to coloured workmen on the railways.

I think the House will be disappointed with the replies that we have had hitherto on the amendment of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District). (Mr. Haywood). The hon. member has mentioned certain points over which it is necessary that a commission of enquiry should be appointed. Hitherto we have received from the other side of the House nothing else but the ascribing of motives, or—something to which we have grown accustomed during the past four or five years—an appeal to the war. The war has to carry the blame for what has happened in South Africa. I want to ask the Minister to hold himself as a responsible person, above that sort of reply. I think he will admit that if complaints have been lodged and specific instances have been mentioned in this House that things may possibly be wrong, but if a member believes that there is reason for an investigation or reason for what he says, while the Miinster thinks that there is no reason, one or the other must be wrong. The Minister’s information may be wrong, or the hon. member who brings the complaints may possibly have wrong information. I think that to satisfy the House one cannot have a better proposal than that made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) namely, to ask that an impartial commission of enquiry should be appointed to make an investigation to make use of certain material. I want to ask the Minister whether he remembers that a year ago I put a considerable number of questions to him in connection with the use of certain material for the Cavalcade. I should like to ask him whether he remembers that I put certain questions about the hours of people who had done duty at Cavalcade. The Minister replied to me and I assumed that his answer was based on information that he received. The information that I received from persons employed in the railway workshops, from persons who themselves had done the work, is in many cases directly contrary to the information that was conveyed to the Minister. I would not for a moment make an accusation that the Minister had intentionally told an untruth, or that he had endeavoured to mislead the House. But certain departmental heads may themselves be under a wrong impression as to what is going on in the department, and accordingly I think this is a reasonable motion on the part of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District), to ask that a commission of enquiry should be appointed. Should it appear that there is nothing in the charge, the Minister and his department are absolved. If the Minister is wrong, an impartial commission can bring to the notice of the Minister as head of the department, what is going on in his department. The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) used this argument. He said that previous Ministers also refused to appoint commissions of enquiry. But that is of little consequence. Even if previous Ministers declined to appoint a commission that has nothing to do with this matter. What we have to deal with here is the charge that has been brought against the Railway Department, whether it is correct or not. I hope that the Minister will comply with this request of the hon. member. He is, it is true, a member of the United Party, but I make this appeal to him in his capacity as Minister of Railways. I have noticed that there have been no direct replies to the amendment moved by the member for Bloemfontein (District). Insinuations have been made indirectly that we on this side are not grateful enough for what the staff of the Railway Department have done, that we do not appreciate all that they have sacrificed in these difficult times. If there are members in this House who appreciate it those members are on this side of the House. We on this side of the House have frequently stood up and pleaded for the railway worker, but the investigation that is now being asked for has nothing to do with the good work or otherwise of the railway workers. It relates to certain persons who have been appointed over these people, and who have actually forced these people to do certain things. My information is that they did work for the Cavalcade during the Railways’ working hours. My information is that material from the Railway Department was used for the Cavalcade. If we are wrong the Minister does not need to be afraid to appoint a commission of enquiry. Appoint an impartial commission, then, add if the commission finds that the charge is groundless the Minister can tell us that there is nothing in the whole matter, and we will then accept that. Now I want to talk about a matter that every member in his House would like to mention. Perhaps I should not include the native representatives. Because as we have just heard a plea has been made for a jumbled up affair of Europeans and non-Europeans. I want to ask the Minister to go into the question of the colour problem on the Railways. I can give the Minister the assurance that when he comes into contact with Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people outside he will find that there is one big complaint, and that is that the position is being made almost impossible for Europeans on the Railways. I think that the people who make use of the railways and who know what the position is on the Cape Town station do not need to be convinced of the seriousness of the position. It is clear to all that an alteration must be brought about in the manner in which Europeans and non-Europeans are thrown together, I put a few questions to the Minister, and before I turn to these questions I want to read out something that the Minister said in the debate last year. I am doing this because the Minister did not reply on the merits of the case, but he answered as follows in connection with the colour problem—

I am reading from Hansard of the 23rd February, 1944, at column 1851—

Unfortunately I may not refer to the new station, except to tell the Minister that he should not be persuaded into choosing another site for the station than the present one—

You will see that he does not treat the matter on its merits—

In other words, the Minister assumes that the public in Cape Town and in the suburbs do not mind at all about their being such mixed crowds on the Railways—

The Minister thus accepts that the people in Cape Town and environs are highly satisfied with the position, that the white people do not mind about the mixing of white persons, coloured folk and natives. I want to read out to the Minister a letter in the language in which it is written. I want to give the Minister the further assurance that the person who wrote this letter is not a supporter of my party. I want to read the letter out, so that I can remove the impression from the Minister’s mind that the public of Cape Town and in the suburbs do not mind about this intermingling occurring between Europeans, coloured people and natives. This Individual writes—

There the Minister may see that this person is very concerned about this state of affairs. He writes further—

I should like the Minister to pay attention to this—

That is one letter that I received, and I can give the Minister the assurance that you are asked by every person who travels on the railways and who knows you, and knows that you have put questions to the Minister about it, to broach the matter, because the position is becoming intolerable. I have stated that it is not necessary for me to mention the facts in order to indicate what is going on at Cape Town station. Everyone who uses the Railways knows that the position in Cape Town is desperate. They can see for themselves the dreadful position at Cape Town and other places. I think that the Minister and other people who have to deal with this agreed that an alteration is necessary, and I want to give the Minister the credit for having himself made efforts to improve that position. I have spoken to the Minister about Platforms Nos. 13 and 14 and asked that those platforms should be closed for non-Europeans. I admit that the Minister endeavoured to improve that position. He closed those platforms, but that did not effect any great improvement. I want to read another letter to show what is going on at our Railway stations. European women who are employed in factories make use of our Railways. There are women who have to come in every day from Bellville and other suburbs to the town to work. We all know that the crush at the station is much greater during working hours, and these women have to go through a subway in order to get to the platform. The one letter that I have received I do not want to read out, but if the Minister will just multiply the letter that I have he will understand that these women are being placed in an impossible position. This letter runs as follows—

I mention the matter here because I have another letter in my possession which I do not really want to read to the House. The women mention that the crowd at the Wood-stock station is so bad that European women sometimes have to stand to one side because non-Europeans and natives jostle them around and do not jostle them in a decent manner that Europeans would do, but in a manner that gives the women reason to be uneasy. I hope that the Minister will understand that the position cannot remain as it is. But to go further, I want to read out another letter to the Minister. I am doing this with a view to showing the Minister that we are not now pleading for separate compartments for European and non-European from the point of view of party politics, but in order to show how serious the position is. This letter, which has also been addressed to a member of this House, runs as follows—

Then the names of certain persons are given. I do not consider it necessary to read them—

Here is another person who is complaining about this, and the Minister should now try to solve the difficulty. I hope that the Minister will not say that he cannot solve it, and that it is a matter for the local authorities. There is only one person who can put it right, and that is the Minister of Railways. If things are taking place on the Railways that should not take place, the Minister is the responsible person. I think it would be absolutely simple to rectify this unpleasantness and the existing state of affairs. In the first place, the Minister should provide separate compartments for Europeans and non-Europeans, as was formerly done. If that is possible on the main lines it is also possible on the suburban lines. The Minister says that the difficulty is that some persons are so light in colour that it is almost impossible to say whether they are Europeans or not. I will admit that, but of course a distinction is drawn between European and non-European on the voter’s rolls. The names of the coloured voters appear at the end of the roll. If a difference can be drawn in the voter’s rolls there can also be differentiation on the Railways. The Minister can improve the position a great deal. He can so improve the position that it will not be unpleasant to travel on the train, which is the case today, but a pleasure. The Minister could effect a tremendous improvement in the position by providing separate compartments for Europeans and nonEuropeans. I do not want to blame the Minister for the state of affairs that exists today. I blame people like the native representatives, who place imaginary grievances in the minds of the natives, things which they would never have dreamed of themselves. I want to ask the Minister to exclude party politics from this matter. I want to ask him not to consider general elections, but to see that right and justice is given to all. Do not tell me that decent nonEuropeans feel happy when they are travelling with Europeans. They feel out of place between white people, and the ordinary type of white person does not feel at home amongst non-Europeans. But it is not only on the suburban lines that this intermingling of races occurs. It also occurs on main lines. You do not need to go far to see that. Take the line to Somerset West. There you have non-Europeans between Europeans in compartments that are intended for Europeans. If you talk to the ticket-collectors the answer is that they are afraid to inerfere. I know that the ticket examiners have cerain duties. They can report the matter to the Railway Police, but if you ask them why they fail to do their duty their reply is that they get no protection from the Department. Some of them are even afraid to lodge a complaint at the office, because they say they are not protected. When a little time ago there was a court case as a result of a certain person bringing a charge that a non-European had sat in a compartment for Europeans, he received no protection from the Minister, and now they are trying to shut their eyes when difficulty arises. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to see that the non-Europeans are kept in their place on the Railways. Over the course of years a distinction has been drawn between Europeans and non-Europeans. The Minister will not dispute that. Over years European and non-European did not sit at the same table, and consequently I want to make an appeal to the Minister to see that no intermingling of the races occurs on the Railways, which after all belong to the people. I would like to mention another matter which is of more than of local significance. I think the Railway Department, or the person who is most concerned with the matter must be rather tired of the complaints that I am regularly bringing in connection with the engagement of certain persons at Mossel Bay station. Hardly a month passes that a complaint is not made concerning European Railway workers at Mossel Bay. The Minister has instituted an enquiry but I want to ask the Minister whether he knows how that enquiry was instituted. There are certain of the heads at Mossel Bay—I am not referring to the station master but to subordinates—who are unsympathetic towards the workers. Should a complaint be brought in from the workmen force is exercised on them. I have put a question to the Minister in connection with the engagement of non-European soldiers at Mossel Bay station, and the Minister’s reply had reference to the engagement of Europeans. There are people who had done temporary work at Mossel Bay for years, and now non-European soldiers have been put in their places. The answer was that this was not the case, and that there was work for all. I can give the Minister the assurance that these are really the facts, and that the person who instituted the enquiry—I do not know what induced him to do so—sent up information that was faulty. Men have gone along there to look for work and have not got work. That is absolutely a fact. I have already been in contact with the Minister’s office, and he knows what I am talking about. Even non-Europeans who were unfitted for the army have been dismissed, and ex-soldiers have been put in their places. If the Minister believes that what I am saying is not correct he can make a further investigation. He will see that that is really the case. The other matters that I want to mention in connection with the Railways I shall leave over to the main estimates should an opportunity then occur. But I want to appeal to the Minister to appreciate the spirit in which we approached the coloured question, and to make an end to the impossible position for Europeans and non-Europeans on the Railways. As matters are going, decent people will later on not make any use of the Railways. I hope that as a business man the Minister will tackle this matter in the spirit in which I have spoken, and that an immediate Improvement will be affected in regard to the relation between Europeans and non-Europeans on the Railways.

I rise for the purpose of drawing attention to a few points under this vote, as it is the only suitable opportunity one will have. The first point I deal with is the aviation policy of the Government, as announced by the Minister when he moved the second reading of this Bill. It was a very interesting statement he made, and I do not think anyone in the House would rigthly have reason to differ from the policy laid down in relation to the attitude that was disclosed at the conference referred to, the Montreal and Chicago Conferences. They were not wholly failures, and yet they were not wholly successes, because internationally the powers do not seem able yet to arrive at a working agreement. But whether the Minister, in saying there should be no cutthroat competition means there should be no competition at all—I take it he does not mean that at all—because competition is certainly healthy in these matters whether it is aviation or any other form of endeavour, and without competition people get slack and one does not get any further. But I think everyone will agree with him that anything in the nature of cut-throat competition, especially for a country like South Africa, would not be a good thing. But I should like to say a few words on the position of aviation as we find it in South Africa at the present time, the civil aviation that is going on under Government auspices. They have a certain amount of competition from the machines that come down from the Congo. Othehwise they have a very large degree of monopoly. I know that the Department is in a difficulty in this respect that they handed over in 1940 all their 29 Lockheed Lodestar machines, and quite rightly too, to the army, who needed them more urgently for war purposes. The army kept them all except one that was held back for ministerial use. I know that the Government is hampered because it only has ten aircraft which have been transferred to the South African Railways, and on which they have had to start their service. In December of 1944 only six of these ten were serviceable, a seventh is serviceable now, and they expect them all to be serviceable next month. The principal criticism that occurs in the minds of the public is this that the fares are much too high; particularly is that so in relation to the fares charged in other countries. Prewar fares in South Africa were less. The fare between Cape Town and Johannesburg was about £13. I have got the tariff in front of me, and I would like to express my sense of obligation for the courtesy that has always been extended to me by the Department from the general manager down to the ordinary running staff, and particularly recently by Col. Leverton, the Assistant Airways Manager. I have had access to various public notices that have appeared with regard to the Airways, and I have before me a list of the services and the amounts charged. Why I say the fares are high is this. Take the fare from the Rand to Cape Town, £20, or the fare from the Rand to Cape Town via Durban, £27 17s. 6d. There are other fares given here, but I do not want to weary the House by giving details of these various services. Considering the small number of planes, there is an extensive service from various parts, to various other parts, north, south, east, west and so on. I think the Administration is making the best of these planes. They have I think, room for 12 in a plane, so the revenue for a single journey between Cape Town and Johannesburg would be about £240. I am convinced that the fare is high. I am convinced that there must be very large profits made on these journeys. It comes to this, that it is a rich man’s method of travelling. No person of moderate means, nobody except very wealthy people, can travel in these planes. One would like to know from the Minister what is the average profit that is being made on a journey. I may be told that I shall not be making a fair comparison, but I am going to give some figures in regard to Australia. I may be told that there they make their own planes and spare parts, whereas we have to import them. To that I would reply what is there to prevent our making our own aircraft here? We have every type of workshop, we have shown during the war that we can make practically anything that it is possible to manufacture in the industrial line, implements of war and so on. Surely it should be easy for us to make planes as in Australia, and also the spare parts. Fares are much cheaper in Australia than here. But in Australia tip-top wages are paid, the wage rates are very high, and yet Australia is able to provide air travel at a much cheaper rate than we do. There is no comparison whatever. But I do think if we made aircraft here we would be able to have larger planes and we would be able to reduce our fares. I want to refer to this, and also to the cost of extra luggage. It is regulated according to the distance travelled. I know individual cases where people wanted to travel by air and they asked about extra luggage, and they were told: it does not really matter; it will only be a few shillings extra and you may just as well take your ertra luggage. One person had to pay £7 8s. 6d. excess for luggage afterwards, just an extra suitcase, at 5s. 6d. per lb.; from the Rand to Cape Town via Durban is it 7s. per lb. extra, and if you come from the Rand to Cape Town via Kimberley and Bloemfontein it is only 5s. 6d. That is very excessive, and I think that people at the airport ought to be able to tell the passenger what the amount of the excess will be. In any case, the fare of £40 to travel by air from Johannesburg to Cape Town and back is far too much. Now let me compare Australia. I suppose from Cape Town to Johannesburg is about 1,000 miles by air. From Sydney to Melbourne the train fare is £5 5s. for 600 miles, and the fare by plane is £6 10s., or 25 per cent. more, and in the Middle East, I believe, it is cheaper to go by plane than by train. A 25 per cent. increase by plane would be fair. But here in the case of Johannesburg to Cape Town the return train fare is only £16, while the fare by plane is 2½ times as much, namely, £40. Let us make some other comparisons. If you go via Durban it is three times as much by plane as by train. Is that a fair thing? The journey is so short that the profit must be enormous. Take the present fare, Johannesburg to Cape Town and back; by train it is only £16. Surely you can afford to take that person by air for less than £40. I know that the public criticises these fares for air travel very severely. The language I heard one person use is language I should not like to use myself, but this person described it as racketeering. I perhaps would not go so far as to call it racketeering, but I know that if a private person were to do that sort of thing, it would be called racketeering. Of course, when a Government department does it one tries to avoid the use of language of that kind. But I say the position should be reviewed by the Minister, particularly with regard to the future. If we are going to start off as carriers of passengers by air in South Africa, and if we are going to charge these exorbitant fares, it simply confines the use of the plane to very rich men, and there are occasions when a man of moderate means may want to use a plane; he may have urgently to get a doctor down for an operation to his child, for instance. There are cases where it has been necessary to travel by air, but people have not been able to afford it, and the question is whether the Government in catering for air passengers should not pay some consideration to other sections of the people besides the very wealthy. That is the position which I think the Minister will have to consider very carefully. I know the difficulties in the way, but I think at the same time he could do something. For instance, why could we not have a return fare so that if a man wants to come from Johannesburg to Cape Town and return or vice versa, he would not have to pay double the single fare? This is a regular practice elsewhere. When you go by steamer, or by plane in other parts of the world, you get a return ticket for the double journey. But here there is no such consideration shown; you are simply asked to pay double the amount if you are making the return journey.

They consider they are doing you a favour in taking you at all.

The Minister will probably say there is a long waiting list, and I know that all the concessions have been taken away except in the case of public servants, who may be urgently needed, here in connection, for instance, with appearing before a Select Committee. This service is certainly a money-maker. The money is, of course, being made for the State, but the question is whether you cannot make the money in a more equitable way, and also give other classes of the community an opportunity to travel by air when it is urgently necessary. Mr. Speaker, the next question I want to mention is one that I think the House should know about. It is the position of our Union Merchant Marine. I received some complaints recently, and I was astounded to find that our Union Merchant Marine are classed as casual labourers. This is what I have been told; I have not had an answer yet to my enquiry; I tried to get some information from the Minister a little while ago. I am informed that these Union Merchant Marine are taken for a trip, and when the trip is over the Government have no further interest in them. They can sign on again if they wish to. But if they get ill no provision is made for their wives and children. There is no pension fund for them. The men working on the harbour tugs have ordinary amenities which are not available for members of our merchant marine. I was very shocked when I learned this.

Is not that the case in all tramp shipping?

I see what the hon. Minister means, but then you have a shipping master to look after them and see that they get on to another ship. Surely the Minister will not tell me that men employed on the Union-Castle lines are working under these conditions that our men are working under. They have their pension fund, I believe.

No.

I would like that point gone into. I am told that the men who work for the big shipping companies enjoy better conditions than these men of ours. I maintain that if we have a State merchant marine such as we have in South Africa, we are in a different position to a private line, and we have no right to employ men under these conditions. These men feel their position very much. They come back and they find men working under all sorts of privileges, and they enjoy none at all; they have no pension fund and nothing for their wives and children. I say that the State has no right to treat men like this, and they should make some provision for them similar to what is done for the men on the Railways. I certainly was very shocked when I heard of this. Our merchant marine is only carried on in a very small way. I have before me a report which I very much commend to hon. members. It is a most important report, the interim report of the South African Shipping Commission issued in Johannesburg in March, 1943. It has never been printed unfortunately. My first question to the Minister is whether he could not get this printed, so that every member of the House could have a copy. There are 85 pages of closely typed matter and 149 paragraphs in this interim report. I would like to ask the Minister whether this commission has presented its full report. This interim report contains most important information and recommendations with regard to the continuance of the mercantile services that we have got. It shows how the matter originated, and though the number of vessels is certainly small, the report is illuminating and shows that we have achieved success, but it is clear that powerful private shipping interests have been too powerful for us. They have come along and the Government have had to fall into line with them. If we are going to have a State shipping service, I think the power of the Government should be behind that service, and private shipping interests should be compelled to recognise the State enterprise, and treat it with the same consideration that they would any private enterprise. I am not going into that aspect of the matter in this debate, but I suggest that members read this interim report; it will give them much food for thought.

Were the ships not sold?

Some were sold, and we replaced them with others. These ships have done very good work. In fact, these few ships that the Government has have done marvellous work for South Africa and they are saving us a lot of money. This is one of the most valuable branches of State enterprises we have in South Africa. That is the conclusion I have come to after reading this voluminous report. Their recommendation is that they hope the service will be continued and perhaps expanded, as the occasion demands. They refer to the trade with West Africa, the very thing we have been looking forward to, and the facilities provided by our shipping service for expanding the trade with the rest of the Continent. Another strong recommendation made in the report is that the law on merchant shipping in South Africa should be consolidated so that we would be able to frame a proper national maritime shipping policy. I should like to ask the Minister whether that recommendation has been considered, because I think it is very important if we are to extend our shipping in South Africa and make it apply to the shipping of cargoes to and from various parts of the world, it is time we took this matter of State shipping more seriously than we have done in the past. I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister in regard to the action he agreed to take in connection with the foreshore. I am not going into this matter, because though it is not exactly sub judice in the sense of it being before a court of law, it is before a committee. I am referring to the Foreshore Development Investigation Committee. The Minister was in a very difficult position. He had very strong cards in his hand, but in spite of that he agreed at the request of a large number of citizens here in Cape Town, to allow the question of the conflicting plans in regard to the foreshore to be submitted to this investigating committee. I want to thank him for having done that. Only a strong man could have taken the action he took. He felt sure of his position, and he had in fact great strength behind it ….

Order, order. I would remind the hon. member that there is a notice of motion on the Order Paper on this subject by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop).

It does deal with it incidentally, Mr. Speaker not in the way I am treating it, but I respect your ruling. I shall merely ask the Minister whether he will make a statement as to when he is likely to receive the report.

I will lay it on the Table tomorrow.

A question has been raised in regard to non-Europeans in the Railway service. I listened with sympathy and I am sure the House did to what was said by the hon. members for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman) and Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) upon this point. It is a matter that I have raised often in the House, and I sympathise entirely with their appeal for better treatment for the lower paid men and for the non-Europeans than they have been receiving. I am glad that the hon. member for Cape Western made a special point regarding what has been done to them of late. Some increases have been made, and some quite good increases since the last Session, and they have been referred to by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen), but not very fully, and I would like to show the House—though I do not say by any means that enough has been done for them, these men need a great deal more to get any sort of position of social security than the wages they are being paid today—but one must record that the general line taken by the Government cannot be severely criticised. They take a wage determination and build on that, and as a matter of fact though they begin at a slightly lower level than is laid down in the wage determination, they end up a little better than the wage determination does. I will give you a few instances from the various centres In Cape Town before the 25th September, 1944, the rate of pay on appointment was 4s. 9d. a day; after September it was 6s. After a period of six months they used to get before September 5s.; that is now 6s. 3d. After twelve months they used to get 5s. 3d. and that has now been increased to 6s. 6d. After a period of 18 months’ service they now receive 6s. 9d. After 54 months’ service it used to be 5s. 6d. before September, 1944, and it is now 7s. After 66 months’ service it used to be 5s. 9d. and it is now 7s. 3d. As the men who are employed in Cape Town are self-fed they get 6d. a day extra allowance. At Kimberley the unskilled non-European labourer begins at 3s. 9d., and it used to be 3s. 3d. After six months’ service he used to receive 3s. 6d. and it is now 4s. At Port Elizabeth there have been similar increases. In comparison with the wage determination where it is 7s. 3d. in Cape Town the wage determination has it at 6s. 8d. At Kimberley there is a 9d. increase. The wage determination is 4s. a day but after six months in the Railway service they get 5s. At Port Elizabeth it was 4s. 9d. after 66 months’ service and the amount now obtained by the men is 5s. 3d., 9d. more than the wage determination. There has been an increase of 6d. at East London after six months’ service. It is the same at Bloemfontein. At Durban and Pietermaritzburg they are paid by the month, and the rate of payment is based on 26 days in the month. At Durban and Pietermaritzburg the amount paid for the month after 66 months’ service used to be 87s. 6d., and it is now 110s. 6d., an increase of 23s. for the month. The wage determination is 3s. 4d. a day. In Johannesburg and Pretoria and on the Reef there has been an increase of 1s. The wage determination rate of pay is 4s. 6d. in Johannesburg and 4s. 4d. for Pretoria, and the Railway rate after 66 months’ service is 5s. So that one must be fair to the Administration and say there has been a substantial improvement in the position of these men as regards their wages since the last Session of Parliament. There is, it is true, room for further improvement. There my hon. friend and I are in entire agreement. I would like to comment on the question raised by the hon. member as to the recognition of trade unions. There he struck a sympathetic chord as far as I am concerned. When I first entered Parliament in 1908, one of the questions put to me was whether I would try to get recognition for the only Civil Service trade union then in existence, namely the Postal and Telegraph Association. I quite sympathise with the hon. member because it took me 11½ years, first 2½ years in the Cape Parliament, and’ then 9 years in the Union Parliament, before they granted the Postal and Telegraph Association, which was in existence from 1902—it was already 6 years old when I became a member of Parliament—and it was a strong organisation with a good monthly newspaper. The Government took up the attitude that they never negotiated with individual members in the service. It took us 11½ years of fighting in this House and in the Cape House, but then we got it through. I have no doubt that the hon. member will succeed in getting recognition. You cannot expect the Government to recognise an association to bind 30,000 people if you have only 8,000 members. They should be more representative. As regards the Postal and Telegraph Association to which I referred that point was attempted to be made, but the Association grew stronger and stronger as the men saw how important it was to act as one unit. I think that is the only way. The Minister apparently has recognised it to this extent that an organisation is not a national organisation until it is in fact national in numbers. I sympathise with the member’s request. I think it is the greatest mistake in the world not to recognise that trade unions are an important element in any country. In fact, you cannot have industrial peace or any other kind of peace if you only have an employers’ organisation and the workers are not organised. I would like to see in this country the system we saw after the last war, a system of Whitley councils, where in every large business or industry you had a council, half representing the capitalists or employers and half the workers. That led to industrial peace which England had not had for many years. It was what was called the Whitley Council scheme. I would like to see workers and their employers strongly organised. It is just as important for the workers to have strong employers’ organisations so that they do not have to negotiate with a number of broken reeds. The employers need strong trades unions and the workers need strong employers’ associations. They need some form of Whitley Councils which ensure the peace of every country. I would like to conclude by saying how much I welcome two speeches from the other side recently. It seems to me that they were beginning to see that not hatred or hostility, but co-operation is the order of the day. We had a speech from the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) about race co-operation, and today we had a speech by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) about international co-operation in aviation.

Are they serious?

I think they are. I take them to be serious. I hope their effort, their missionary effort, will be directed to their own side of the House, and that there will be a new atmosphere in South Africa so that we can debate things on their merits, on the basis of co-operation, because there is no other basis which will give lasting peace.

Whilst I agree with almost everything the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) has said, I would like to suggest that the Union of South Africa has a much better system than the Whitley Council. We have legislation on our Statute Book and where these councils were formed, they work far better than did the Whitley Councils, because the latter actually did not work at all. They were formed in a period of very extensive strikes, particularly in the coal mines, culminating eventually in the general strike. We had the same trouble in South Africa. All this may not be very germane to the debate, but it deals with the remarks made by the hon. member about trade unions. This is the point I want to emphasise, that the Government has passed legislation to give us industrial conciliation boards, and industrial conciliation acts, but the Government does not bind itself by the legislation, and that is one of the faults of the legislation that it can be made binding on primary employers and trade unions, not engaged on Government work, but the Government itself refuses to recognise this legislation. It is only recently that we managed to get the Railway Administration to give some small recognition to the Factories Act which was passed by this House. In almost every instance the Government imposes regulations, rules and controls upon employees and employers which they are not prepared to accept themselves. It may be that in the instances read out by my hon. friend opposite we do find that the Government wages are slightly higher than those laid down by the Wage Act, but that is a rarity indeed, and conditions in the Government service usually do not conform to the conditions of hours and regulations which are laid down for industry and trade outside. It seems to me that the sooner the Government makes up its mind that any legislation passed in this House for the purpose of regulating the relationship between employer and employee should first of all apply to the Government itself, the better. Surely the Government should be the best employer and set an example, and say to the average employer: “This is what we are prepared to do ourselves, and we will force you to do it also.” But what the Government says is: “This is what you have to do, but do not make any attempt to apply it to us because we are above it.” The Ministers say that they are above it. This applies to that particular nonEuropean union. The policy of the Government, or the Labour Department, is that they do not want company unions, but the policy of the Minister of Transport is that we must encourage company unions by departmental decisions. It is the same with all other unions. The Government took the attitude that service in the Government is something different from other service. That is not so. There is no difference between a fitter who is working on essential work, repairing ships, and one working on equally essential work in the Railway workshops? The Government says that if they work outside they can belong to any union, but if they work in the Railway service they must belong to their association. The Railway Department has refused at all times to negotiate with men who are outside the Railway service. They say they can have no interference from outside individuals or organisations, with the Railway service. Yet they, or another department, will say to a private employer: “We can have all the interference in the world with your organisation to see that you or any other trades union fulfil some requisite.”

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, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 27th February.