With leave, I would like to ask the Prime Minister—

On behalf of the Prime Minister who unfortunately cannot be present at the moment, I want to state that he is still engaged in obtaining the necessary information, and that he hopes to be able to make a fuller statement to this House later in the day. In the meantime I wish to state that it is unfortunately true that an explosion did take place this morning, not in the main ammunition factory near the Mint, but in the main magazine, where, as I understand, ammunition was also manufactured. It is not yet quite clear where the explosion actually took place but I believe it is in one of the sections adjoining the ammunition factory which is situate behind the prison at Pretoria on the western side of Potgieter Street. An explosion has taken place and the main magazine has blown up and other buildings have also been damaged. Fires are still burning. Unfortunately it is also true that this has been accompanied by the loss of human life. At the moment it is still too early to give definite details in regard to this, as the work of extinguishing fires and the removal of persons who have perished is still continuing. So far—and I do hope that figures will not become considerably higher—we can say that 10 Europeans and 15 natives have lost their lives, that 32 Europeans and 40 natives who have been injured, have been removed to hospital and have been detained there for further treatment, whilst 33 Europeans who had been taken to hospital, have been sent home, apparently because in their case the injuries were not serious. This is all I can state at the moment. As I said the Prime Minister hopes to give further information later in the day. In the meantime I should like on behalf of the Government, and I think also on behalf of the House as a whole, to express our sincere sympathy with the relatives of the unfortunate persons who lost their lives.

I move—

In the course of the second reading debate of the Bill, a very interesting matter was raised by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), namely the powers vested in the Railway Administration to discriminate as regards, for example, providing facilities for the different sections of the community, and to provide separate facilities to different sections of the community. According to the Minister’s speech, yesterday evening, he said that he was not a social reformer and under the existing law he was not empowered to enforce or promulgate any regulations which would for instance segregate coloureds and natives, and he told the hon. member for Mossel Bay that, as far as the railways were concerned, especially here in Cape Town, he did not have the right, because here in Cape Town, it is the practice of the Town Council and also of other private concerns that the different races travel, live and sit together. It is an amazing statement from the Minister of Railways, for up to the present we have always been under the impression that the power is vested in the Railway Administration to promulgate regulations stipulating that coloureds and natives should travel separately from Europeans. That has always been our impression, and it is therefore alarming to be told by the Minister that he is unable to enforce such a policy. If the Minister’s point of view is correct and is upheld, then after the war the railways will be looked upon with disfavour by the European section of the community, and ultimately this policy will have repercussions on the revenue of the railways, for we do not want to travel together with coloured people, we want segregation. I would like to refer the Minister to Act No 22 of 1916, the “Railways and Harbours Regulation, Management and Control Act.” I would refer him to Article 4 of the Act and I will read it in English, so that he may undérstand it better, because here it appears in Netherlands—

A regulation was promulgated hereunder. It is regulation No. 19 which I will come to later. In 1931 an amendment to the 1916 Act was passed by this Parliament, namely Article 3 of Act No. 21 of 1931. The effect of thé amendment was that the Administration today has the power to segregate a train or a portion of a train. Whereas before the words “railway carriage” were used, the word “train” has now been substituted, and the article now reads as follows—

I would like the Minister to explain why he did not take this Article into consideration. There was an interesting case in connection with this matter and that is why I asked the Minister yesterday evening when he made his speech, “What about the reservation of separate seats, benches, etc., on the stations?” and two or three times the Minister answered: „What of it?” On the railway stations you see benches reserved for Europeans and others for non-Europeans The Minister paid no attention to my question. I remembered, however, that there was a court case in connection with this regulation in which the regulation was confirmed. The regulation was confirmed in the Court of Appeal. The hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys) is sitting alongside the Minister, and it is interesting that the case occurred in Kimberley. It is the case of Rex vs. Herman. I intend discussing this matter rather fully. It is reported in A.D. 1937 on page 168. First of all I will read the heading of the case—

Then it goes on—

I have indicated that on their own property they are permitted to make this distinction but they may also do it on their trains. They may reserve a portion of a train for Europeans and a portion for non-Europeans according to the Act, and if I understood the Minister correctly, he said that under the Act he was not empowered to do this, and that he is no social reformer. I would very much like the Minister to tell me whether I have interpreted his opinion correctly. I will go on—

The accused was charged in the latter court with a contravention of Regulation 19(d) of the General Railway Regulations framed under Section 4 of Act 22 of 1916 and promulgated in Government Notices, 1728 of the 12th of December, 1917, and 532 of the 19th of April, 1918.

These were the regulations which were promulgated in connection with property, but Section 4 also empowers the Minister to frame the same regulations with regard to trains, and he may segregate one portion of a train for Europeans and another for non-Europeans. I will now read further—

An appeal to the Local Division having failed, the accused appealed to this Court, the Local Division having granted leave to appeal.

Then follow the arguments advanced by the different advocates and I would draw the attention of the Minister to the finding of the Judge-President, at that time Judge-President De Villiers—

Then he goes on and says—

Where we have this case in connection with the reservation of property for Europeans and non-Europeans on platforms, the Minister can go further and segregate trains or portions of trains by way of regulation for certain races. I should like the Minister to give his attention to the finding of Judge of Appeal, Feetham, which brings to light another aspect of the matter. It will enable the Minister to study the decision with regard to those matters and thus convince him that he is empowered to frame regulations governing the reservations of trains and portions of trains for Europeans and non-Europeans. That is if such a regulation does not already exist. It may be that one does exist. The regulation which I have referred to deals with property on stations, etc. We would like that principle made applicable to trains as well and according to the amended Act of 1931 the Minister has the right to do so. There is another matter I wish to bring to the Minister’s attention and we do not want to hear again that these are individual cases which should not be brought to his notice here, because this person was afforded no hearing. He endeavoured to convince the Administration that he had a case, but he could not make any progress, and for that reason I feel duty bound to mention it here. Yesterday the hon. Minister spoke sneeringly about the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) and said that he had been premature in raising these questions and matters and that by so doing he had rendered no service to the Administration. But as was indicated by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) there are cases brought before the Administration which do not receive attention and we, as a democratic nation, have every right to raise these matters in Parliament. The case which I want to refer to is that of a stoker in the Administration who joined the military forces and was wounded. He then returned and although he was not yet in a position to resume his duties, he was compelled to begin work. The wounds the man has sustained had severely affected his health, with the result that he had to go on leave, and what I want to bring home to the Minister is that his department showed no actual interest in this man. They refused to meet him half way. When he felt he had reached a deadlock, he came to me and asked me to try and bring the matter to the notice of the Minister. I received the following letter from him dated 22nd October, 1944—[translation]

I joined the military forces just after war was declared, and on the 16th May, 1940, we were called up for full-time service. On the 7th May, 1941, we were sent North. On the 29th May, 1942, I was wounded in action. My wounds were of a very serious nature. On the 9th December, 1942, I arrived back in Durban. My foot was then in the same condition as it is now. In March, 1943, I was sent to the “Central Army Dispersal Depot.” Here I was told that the Railways recalled us immediately to our work. After thirty days’ leave granted by a medical board at the first-mentioned depot, I commenced my work on the 10th April, 1943, the date of my discharge. Reason for discharge: “Service no longer required; to resume with S.A. Railways.” From that time on my foot continued to give me trouble. Every now and then I was absent from work on account of my foot. By the 3rd March, 1944, my foot became so bad that I was sent to Windhoek by our railway doctor, where I underwent an operation to my foot. The chief railway doctor at Windhoek informed me that he could do nothing further to my foot. From that time on I was sick. The Railways granted me sick pay for 78 days; for the rest you can see what they stipulate according to a letter which I enclose. On the 14th September I was called up for a medical examination at the West End Military Hospital at Kimberley. Enclosed you will find a copy of the original letter from Pretoria which was made by Mr. G. Kuhn, of Upington. I have a wife and one child who are dependent on me. Now I ask you, can I keep a home going if I receive such treatment when I was A.1. when I joined up?

That is the case of P. R. De Bruyn. I have the correspondence here to which I have referred. The first is the letter from the locomotive foreman at Upington. That letter is dated 10th October, 1944, and it read as follows—

“De Bruyn was off sick for the period 4.5.1944 to 27.8.1944, and received sick pay for the period 4.3.1944 to 2.6.1944, i.e., 78 days. He received no pay for the period 3.6.1944 to 27.8.1944.

“He has 24 days paid leave standing to his credit for the period ending 31.12.1943, and he has not yet availed himself of leave during this year, thus leaving a total of 36 days paid leave in his favour.

“Provided De Bruyn is agreeable to utilise all paid leave standing to his credit to cover an equivalent period of sick, please submit the necessary leave advice for 36 days commencing from the date up to which the last pay sheet in respect of sick pay was passed in his favour, together with the G.104 certificate.

“I shall be glad if you will please ascertain what De Bruyn’s income was during the period he received no pay from the Administration, i.e., private income, monies received from benefit societies, etc.”

A registered letter, dated 13th October, 1944, was also addressed to him by the Commissioner of Pensions—[translation]

I wish to inform you that with reference to the Medical Board which examined you on the 14th September, 1944, at Kimberley, the Military Pensions Board has accepted that your condition “serious injury to left foot,” “a piece of shrapnel in left lung and back, as well as a wound in left side” (the results of bullet shot wounds) is owing to military service, and have fixed the grade of your disability at 10 per cent. from 14th February, 1944, to 13th February, 1946. Accordingly a provisional gratification of £46 for yourself and your wife has been granted to you over the abovementioned period, and a warrant voucher in settlement thereof is hereby enclosed. Before February, 1946, arrangements will be made for you to be medically examined again in order to determine whether you will be entitled to any further compensation. The under-mentioned memoranda are enclosed for your information—

1. (1) Medical Board of Appeal.
2. (2) Medical treatment.

Your marriage certificate is returned herewith.

Yours faithfully, Commissioner of Pensions.

N.B.: This letter must be carefully looked after and produced to the Medical Officer of Pensions, Magistrate or District Surgeon when treatment may be needed in connection with your pensionable disability, namely:

Ten per cent. disability?

Yes. The man’s left foot is injured. He has pieces of shrapnel in his left lung and in his back, and 10 per cent. disability is granted to him. I saw the man personally in October, and then he was incapable of doing his work. He told me that if he went to work, his foot became so sore that for days and days he would have to stop again. I wrote to the Administration about this case on the 12th November, 1944, and on the 3rd February, 1945, I received the following answer—[ translation]

Two-thirds of his salary, and the man is not in a position to work as a result of his injuries. The whole position is this, that this man went to fight, and when he returned he was compelled to go to work. When he could no longer do his work, the Administration wanted to force him to make use of his accrued leave, and then he would be paid for his leave. I contend that this is unfair treatment. If this person can prove that as a result of his injuries he cannot work, then the Administration must meet him half way, and they must pay him a certain amount until he is fit again and can resume work. The man feels embittered at the treatment meted out to him. The letter goes on—[translation]

As regards the question of a pension being granted to Mr. De Bruyn in respect of his physical disability, he has been informed that the Department will be prepared to submit his case to the Commissioner of Pensions. He replied, however, that he desired no such help from the Department as he had already placed the matter in the hands of an attorney.

The man is embittered at the treatment he has received and he has handed the matter over to an attorney to ascertain what pension rights he is entitled to. If this is an example of the treatment accorded to officials who went to fight for the ideals which the Minister believes in so implicitly, then I think it is shameful. I saw the man personally. He cannot carry on with his work, and now he is told that he is 10 per cent. disabled and must wait until February 1946, before he can be re-examined. A doctor at Upington told me that if the man were to be examined now, his disability would be fixed much higher than 10 per cent., but he must wait until February, 1946. I wonder if the man will still be alive then. There is another matter which, in the circumstances, I could not raise at the second reading. It came to my knowledge yesterday but it was then so late that I could not deal with it. It relates to the transport of goods from Upington to Askham and from Koopmansfontein. Those parts are experiencing a very severe drought. A prominent farmer of those parts told me that if you drive by motor-car from Upington to Askham, there is a stench of dead animals all the way. Between 100 and 200 miles from there lies the beautiful valley of the Orange River where thousands of tons of lucerne are produced. Those farmers can buy lucerne and orders are placed with the Co-operative Society, but the goods lie on the station while the animals die. As early as November I brought this matter, to the notice of the Minister’s Department. I also wrote to the General Manager in this connection, and he replied that he would make arrangements with regard to Koopmansfontein in the district of Kuruman. Relief did come, but my information is that goods are again piling up in those parts. Let me tell the Minister what happened during my visit to those parts in October last. I arrived at a shop on a farm and the man told me that he could not obtain a bag of flour. Coloureds sit around for days and days and they cannot get flour because there are no transport facilities. If the Europeans do not help these coloured people, they die of starvation. That is what was happening in those parts in October, 1944. The position has improved slightly, but there is again an accumulation of goods at Koopmansfontein. I have also made representations with regard to Upington. The Minister visited those parts and promised to send military lorries there. But he sent covered transport lorries. The result is that 34 or 38 bales are loaded for a distance of 100 to 140 miles. There is a camp there, but the Administration could not dispose of the goods because the hoods prevented the lorries being fully loaded. On the farms we do not use covered lorries and for that reason they can carry big loads. I want to ask the Minister to give his personal attention to this matter. The farmers tell me too that the natives who work there have not the least idea that they have come to a part of the land where a state of emergency exists. Everything takes place according to a timetable; they only work a limited number of hours, and drive at a certain speed. It is perhaps a good thing because the roads are bad. But the people must realise that a state of emergency exists, and they cannot adhere to ordinary working hours. We must adapt our working hours to the serious position which exists. The position is very distressing and I beseech the Minister to give his attention to the matter as soon as possible, and, if possible, to bring about a complete reorganisation so that transport can go there regularly. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has done in the past, but it is my duty to say that the service which has been established is inefficient. I hope that the Minister will give his attention to the matter.

I wish to refer to a subject on which I have previously spoken on several occasions, but I make no apology for returning to it. It is the subject of the disposal of the land at the head of Durban Bay. This has become rather a hardy annual with me, but I am going on with the subject because I believe in the righteousness of my cause. I consider the method of disposal of these lands is of equal importance to the disposal of the reclaimed land on the Foreshore at Cape Town. We all know the controversy that has raged over the Cape Town Foreshore, but up to the present there has been no great controversy in regard to the disposal of the Durban Bay Lands. The people of Cape Town had a full opportunity to judge which was the better of the two schemes, with complete reports and plans put before them. But the people of Durban are in total ignorance of the Railway’s intentions in regard to their plans. I must admit, however, that when the Minister was last in Durban he did lay before a few members of Parliament a plan showing what was projected in regard to the disposal of these lands. But it was a very hasty interview and we could not absorb what was put before us, and moreover the Minister had no technical officer with him. I am not going to pin him down to what he then disclosed, but the impression he gave me was that the whole of the land at the head of the Bay, a total area of 1,000 acres approximately including reclaimed land is to be devoted to railway purposes. If that is so, I consider it gravely detrimental to the future prosperity of Durban. These lands at the head of the Bay have always been regarded as Durban’s natural outlet for industrial expansion. While I am in agreement with the Minister and the Department in placing the new workshops there—I am not finding any fault with that—my contention is that it is far too expansive for the Railways to approriate the lot. I know of one engineering firm at Durban which is doing valuable work connected with the war effort, and anxious to expand. They are circumscribed in their present site, and they have been endeavouring for years to obtain an area at the Bay head. I myself have approached the Minister on behalf of this firm without result. Having been unable to obtain the land at the Bay head they approached the owners of an adjoining site—Indians—asking whether they would dispose of their land, but the Indians turned round and said: “We will buy out the engineering works, instead of disposing of our land, and we will put the present owner in as director of the new company.” That is by the way, but the point is this, that I know of at least one firm in Durban which is very anxious to obtain land at the head of the Bay, and cannot get it. Now, Sir, I have referred to the controversy that has been raging in regard to the Cape Town Foreshore, and the matter has now been settled. I think everyone will be very glad to know that a solution has been effected and it was due to the services of a man who has come from England. I believe his name is Maj.-Gen. Szlumper. I would like to put this forward to the Minister. If this gentleman is still in the country—he is evidently an expert in town planning and railway matters—I would put it seriously to the Minister that this gentleman be engaged to go to Durban and report on the future of the Durban Bay head. Here we have a man of independent thought, with no axe to grind, and I seriously suggest that this gentleman be requested to go to Durban and draw up a report as to the future use and disposal of this very large and valuable area of land.

During the past two years there has been no end to the criticism levelled at various matters relating to the Railways. This morning I want to start not with criticising the hon. Minister but first of all with praising him for a few matters which he has put right in my constituency. As hon. members perhaps know there have been various difficulties in my constituency during the past three years, and I must say that the hon. Minister has greatly assisted me in connection with several matters. I hope he will let me thank him here in public for the bus service between Vryheid and Gollel which he introduced. The bus is not running yet, but I understand from information I have now received from his Department, that it is but a question of a few more days. That bus service will assist a large section of the people who are providing us with vegetables, and I want to give the Minister the assurance that they are very satisfied with this arrangement. Furthermore I want to thank him for the bus service he introduced after the election. I understand that in 1924 such a bus service was also started between Vryheid and Witfolosi, but this was before the election and immediately after the election it was cancelled again. I want to emphasise that in the recent case the Minister introduced the bus service after the election, and therefore did not come to my assistance in the election, but nevertheless we are very grateful. I understand that this bus service will now be extended to Witfolosi.

Was the promise not made before the election?

I won the election without that assistance. At this stage, however, I want to make a further appeal to the Minister. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat, for his Department is closely connected with this matter and I want to express my confidence that assistance will be given in regard to this matter, viz. the feeding of the native population in those areas, which leaves much to be desired. When they have no mealies, it will at least be possible to transport mealies to them if the necessary buses are available, and I want to express my faith in the Minister giving attention to these representations and, as in the past, again supplying us with lorries in other areas, so that when the need is most urgent, those natives can be fed thereby preventing any unrest or suffering among them. As hon. members may know my constituency is not yet free of East Coast fever. As a matter of fact the area has been closed for nearly three years. The farmers cannot move their livestock and I want to appeal again to the Minister to provide us with buses with which that livestock may be moved to the railway stations, in order that my constituency with its more than one million head of cattle may assist in feeding the markets. They may not drive those animals along the roads. The only means of transportation which exists there is the railway bus and if we do not have that bus there, not only will the farmers suffer financially, but the Controller of Foodstuffs will also suffer because he cannot make use of over one million head of cattle in my constituency. [Interjection.] I also have a number of cattle there of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) who made that interjection. But it is not only the cattle we cannot transport. What about the farm produce? The farmers are not allowed to use wagon and oxen, as these are not permitted to leave the farms, and I therefore want to appeal to the Minister to expand where possible that bus service, in order to collect the wool and produce—potatoes, mealies, and so on—of the farmer on his farm. I believe that this will be feasible in many cases. If this is not done, the farmers will suffer great losses. In view of the shortage of lorries in our country and the impossibility of buying lorries, this will be the only method the farmers have to transport their products to the market. There is one district in my constituency where farming operations are being carried on under great difficulties, especially between Vryheid and Utrecht, and I wonder whether the time has not come to consider the running of a bus service between Vryheid and Utrecht. The people there will be quite satisfied if that bus would run only once a week, for instance on Fridays to Utrecht, and on Mondays or Tuesdays back to Vryheid. So much for our bus services. As far as rail conveyance is concerned, my constituency and also certain other areas along the railway line are still suffering from the high railway tariffs. The hon. members perhaps know that we have not got the main line tariff in operation there. I have already brought the matter to the notice of the Minister. I am of the opinion that the time has now come, especially in view of the expansion of new industries in Vryheid, the establishment of a new factory for the manufacture of torch batteries and the heavier traffic resulting therefrom—there is moreover the export of trees or props for the mines, quite apart from the coal mines—that main line tariffs should be introduced there. I do not need to tell the House what the difference is, but it is a great difference and it hampers expansion, particularly of industries and farming. I have already explained to the Minister the necessity for developing certain parts of my constituency by the construction of railway lines or a further expansion of the bus services. I am referring especially to what the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) has already mentioned, viz. the possibility of the construction of a railway line from Eshowe to Melmoth and from Melmoth to Babanango and from Babanago to Vryheid. That would be a great help to the farmers. I know what the policy of the department is. We find in every Department the same reply: Give us the products and then we shall give the facilities. What we ask is : Give us the facilities and then we shall develop those areas to the benefit of the whole country. Furthermore I understand—and here the Minister will be able to give me the correct information—that it is intended to construct a railway line from Gollel to Pongola and from Pongola to Piet Retief. I believe the distance is a mere 36 miles. This line, however, will not be of much use because the area it traverses is undeveloped and practically uninhabited. Why cannot the Minister have the line constructed through an area which will be able to benefit from it? If I may make a suggestion, I would recommend that the proposed railway line be constructed not from Gollel, but from Mkuzi through the Magut valley. I suggest this because I know that this would create far greater possibilities than the line they now intend to construct. The Makateeskop mine has now been closed down. A railway line runs from the Makateeskop mine as far as Doembie station. I have already submitted representations to the Minister, but I want to repeat it here in public so that he may be able to tell us what the intentions of the Administration are. That railway line will in the near future be pulled up unless we undertake steps immediately. The matter is therefore urgent, and I want to appeal to the Minister to settle this matter immediately and not to allow the demolition of that railway line. A further matter in connection with which I have made representations to him is in regard to the private railway line between Utrecht and Newcastle. To give an instance of what people have to pay on this private line, because the state has consistently refused to take over that line, I may mention what is the difference in freight tariff for 10-ton lots of bark. On this Utrecht line of 25 miles the private company concerned charges 110d. per two thousand lbs. at the moment. Transported on the South African Railways the charges would amount to 62d. per two thousand lbs. The fixed tariff of the private mining company which owns this line, for a 10-ton quantity of bark from Utrecht to Durban is 305d. per to thousand lbs. The tariff of the South African Railways is 201d., a difference of 104d. for the distance Utrecht-Durban. It is therefore not surprising that those people are labouring under great hardships and that it is practically impossible for them to produce at a profit or to market their products without a loss. For this reason I should like to ask the Minister to reconsider this matter once again—although, as I understand, his chief official has reported against it—and to consider the possibility of the Administration taking over this railway line at last. The Government has the right to take over that line now. The line has been long enough in the hands of the private company and we know that in accordance with the agreement made at the time, the Railway Administration is now entitled to take over this line. Before I sit down I still want to say something. We have heard quite a lot here about the appointment of unilingual men in our Railway service. That accusation has been made. I must admit that such accusations have also reached me from English-speaking people in my constituency. English-speaking bilingual South Africans have approached me and told me that they object against the appointment of unilingual persons over the heads of bilingual ones. The Minister will be the first to admit that this should not happen. We are very satisfied otherwise; I do say that personally I am very satisfied with the negotiations I have had so far with the Minister and his Department. But I trust that he will not close his eyes to those possible sources of dissatisfaction in his Department.

For my part, I have nothing to thank the Minister for. I have heard a lot of people thanking him, but the Midlands where I come from have nothing to thank him for.

That must be the fault of their member.

On one occasion we asked for more facilities as far as dairy products are concerned. From time to time this has been turned down. Although there are rebate rates on maize, there is no rebate on the balanced rations for dairy stock, and as the dairy industry is very hard hit. I hope that the Minister will once more go into the matter and see whether he cannot help us and give us a lower rate or the same rate as for mealies. I think it is essential to do so in these times we live in. Then I wish to ask him to create more cold storage facilities on the trains. As you realise, we are in future going to extend our cold storage plants in the Midlands and in other parts, and unless we have cold storage trucks to send that meat to other centres, it will be very difficult for us to do it. I hope that we are telling the Minister in time that we intend erecting cold storages all over the country and that we will need the tracks. We will give him as much work as he wants if he provides these cold storage trucks. If we had cold storage facilities at De Aar, Rosmead, and different places, in bulk, we can send the stuff all over the country. There will then be equilibrium. At present everything goes to Johannesburg and nothing to Cape Town. We would like him to extend cold storage on the trains. I would also like the Minister to go into the matter of cold storage on the branch line from East London to Rosmead. Between Stormberg and Rosmead there are no such facilities. For example, at present there is a shortage of meat here The farmer has the right to use his own meat here, but if he has no cold storage facilities he cannot get it. I would like the Minister to go into this matter of the station and stores and storage houses at Cradock. The old Cradock Station is still the original station which was built when the first railways were opened, and I can assure him that it is a disgrace to have a station like that in a city—yes, it is almost a city—like Cradock, one of the most up-to-date towns in the Union but with a very bad station. It is so bad that the mice are absolutely eating up the place and carrying it away. There may be snakes and all sorts of things in that station. It is really a disgrace. It was built somewhere about the ’80’s and no improvements have been made there at all. I have put this matter to the Minister in the past and he has promised to go into it but we have received nothing. I can assure the Minister that the public of Cradock are very dissatisfied about the way they are being treated. Another thing I should like to ask the Minister is about the footbridge. I do not know who was the one responsible, whether it was he or the previous Government, who promised the public of Cradock that they would give them a footbridge, but it has not been done. The old bridge, over the railway line is old, rickety and very hard to get over. It will cost about £2,000, so why not spend that money in order to improve facilities. The boys have to go over the bridge further down and at any time motor-cars can knock down some of them which will cost a lot in compensation.

Don’t you want an escalator?

I do not know the gentleman who is speaking. I would also ask the Minister to join up the railway line between Hofmeyr and Tarkastad. Very big companies have been formed to exploit the salt there, and not only the salt, but they are going to manufacture cement and also, I believe explosives. I believe it will be a very big centre. These people now have to send their salt from Hofmeyr back to Rosmead and through Rosmead back to the East London and other lines. If this stretch of line from Hofmeyr to Tarkastad can be built, a matter of 30 miles, you would also connect your two main lines, i.e., the Port Elizabeth to Johannesburg line, and the East London to Cape Town line. That would help in times of extreme traffic to divert some of the traffic from one main line to the other. I feel that in the circumstances lots of new development is being done there, and the Minister should investigate this matter and build that piece of line as soon as possible.

I want to say at the outset that I did not want to take part in this debate but after listening to some of the criticism which has been levelled at the Minister and the Railway Administration generally, I think it is only right on my part to pay a tribute to them instead of blaming them, as we have heard from both sides of the House. I want to say this, that last week I left this noble City of ours to go to the North, and when we left Cape Town station I looked at the train, consisting of 17 or 18 coaches, well-packed with passengers, and we were delivered in safety and comfort, every one of these passengers, at our destinations on Saturday morning, with the greatest speed and comfort. Let us have some fair play in connection with this matter and let us give tribute where tribute is due. A point which struck me in connection with this debate is the following. I wonder whether many members on this side of the House have travelled on railways outside the country. Well, I have travelled outside the country.

Hear, hear!

I have been on the American and Canadian railways and I have recently made a journey from Hamilton to Ottawa, the capital of Canada, and I can assure you that one of the most uncomfortable journeys I have ever made was that one. I applied for sleeping accommodation and when they told me the figure I would have to pay for sleeping accommodation. I asked whether they thought I wanted to buy the railway. I want to say this that the sleeping accommodation we in this country enjoy when travelling on South African trains is hard to beat anywhere else, and knowing how little we pay for it in comparison with other countries, I congratulate the Minister. I am going to congratulate the Railway Administration for the way that they carried on our railways during this war period, a credit to themselves and a credit to everyone connected with them. It is a well-known fact that I have always got something to say in connection with the division I have the honour to represent, and on this occasion I am going to plead that the hon. Minister should do something about the level crossings. Just recently we had a sad accident on a crossing near the Crown Mines where loss of life occurred, and not only loss of life, but an ambulance belonging to the S.P.C.A. got knocked to pieces and it is a job to replace it. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible whether the level crossings on what is known as the Reef railway line can be abolished. I made the request some years ago in connection with the main line and I must, say this, that the Administration acceded to my request and abolished the level crossings. I am going to take advantage of this occasion to appeal to the Minister to see whether it is not possible to do away with the level crossings on the middle lines on the Reef.

The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) and other speakers before him have told us a great deal about the excellent way in which the Railways are being administered today and especially about the excellent services which are being given. I believe that we can all agree as far as the last-mentioned aspect is concerned. The experience I have had, and still have of the Railways during the last few years—this difficult war period—justify me in saying that the Railway staff deserves the highest appreciation; if we consider the long hours during which and the difficult times and circumstances under which these people have to work, we cannot but express our appreciation for the services of those persons. The fact that these officials have to work long hours under very trying conditions does not mean that the Minister should receive the credit for it. I believe there are cases where officials have to work such long hours and at such inconvenient times, that it will be better that the colleague of the hon. Minister, the Minister of Labour, does not hear about it, as otherwise a conflict will be unavoidable. I am referring, amongst others, to the catering staff on the trains. The number of hours those people have to work may be anything from sixteen to eighteen per day. What is worse, however, is that lately on some of the trains girls have been appointed for these catering services. As far as my experience goes, I can state that those services have been very efficient. But I know of cases where these girls have had to start at five o’clock in the morning, and I have witnessed personally that after twelve o’clock midnight they still had to count the money and balance every account before they could go to bed. If the Minister of Labour were to do his duty in this matter I guess there would be a clash. A senior railway official who travelled together with me told me: “Thank the Lord that the Minister of Labour has not yet interfered.” We should remember that to satisfy these people it will not be sufficient to give them the credit for the work done. During the last few years a deplorable tendency on the part of the State has become noticeable, namely to enforce regulations upon private undertakings in regard to shorter working hours and the paying of certain fixed wages to their employees, whilst on the other hand these wages are often not being paid by the State itself, and neither does it adhere to the hours of work which it has laid down for private undertakings. The case I mentioned is a glaring one and I really feel that this is a matter which deserves the greatest attention. In connection with the question of promotions, the Minister yesterday night declared that railway officials are promoted on their merits. We are very glad to hear that and it is more than high time that promotions in South African government services as a whole should not be made purely on the grounds of seniority, but mainly on merits. If that were done we would be able to obtain more satisfactory services from the staffs of the various departments. The question which crops up here is : Who will decide those merits? On previous occasions I have stated here in this House that promotions in the civil service are based on only two factors; firstly on the period the person concerned has been sitting on his chair and secondly on the question whether the chief wants him to retain his curly hair. As far as I know there is no system of promotion either in the Railway service or in the civil service. It is high time that we should adopt a system of promotion under which length of service, capabilities and other factors such as educational qualification all receive due consideration. If we in this country do not soon realise that we must introduce a well-planned system of promotion both in the Railway service and in the rest of our State services, we shall remain so far behind private enterprise that there will be no possibility of catching up and competing with it in the future. On top of all this we in South Africa are faced with a problem which other countries, or at least the majority of them, do not know and that is the racial question and racial strife. Whether one belongs to the English-speaking race or to the Afrikaans-speaking race, being human one will always be inclined to promote either an English-speaking or an Afrikaans-speaking person, as the case may be. That should be eliminated at all costs and it will only be possible to do so if we have a proper system of promotion under which every qualification of a person is given a certain number of marks. That is wanted in the Railway service and in the Government service as a whole. I cannot understand how the Minister can continue with the old system of promotion which has been in use here for hundreds of years, whilst in the meantime the whole world has advanced into other directions. There is another matter about which I want to say a few things, viz. our air services. We are glad that the Minister has found it possible to put a few aeroplanes into service again and to resume our air service, but more aeroplanes should be made available, and that ought to be possible in the near future, so that our air service may play the important part which we feel it should play in a vast country such as the Union. The earlier an air service of a satisfactory nature and at moderate charges is introduced, the sooner will this country be able to recover from the shocks of this war. The tariff which has been laid down for the air service of today is far too high. One can quite understand that in view of the small service and the large staff which we have, resulting in very high overhead expenses, the service is a very expensive one for the Administration, and the only way in which the Minister can reduce the costs is by expanding the air service. We therefore make an earnest appeal to the Minister to expand it. I hope that when he does expand the service, he will also in future make the service available again to the member of this House. I now come to the very important question which was raised in the course of the second reading debate and which has been raised again this morning by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), namely the coloured problem on the railways. That the Minister shakes his head and declares that nothing can be done in the matter does not bring us any further. This is a problem not only of the present time but one that is developing more and more. If the conditions prevailing here on the suburban trains should spread further into the country, they not only will make the railways most unpopular among Europeans, but the Minister will kill the railway service itself. If I had to travel from here to Pretoria under the conditions prevailing at present on the suburban lines, I would not travel. In this matter I do hot stand alone, but I think the majority of the members of this House are of the same opinion, as well as hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country. The matter still being in a stage of development, it should now be tackled and put right We cannot solve it by a laissez-faire policy. We dare not let the matter drag on. These conditions are beginning to spread right through the country. If one looks today at the Johannesburg station, and in particular the Germiston station, and this is also partly true of the Pretoria station, one notices a position developing there which becomes absolutely impossible and we should solve it now. It cannot wait until next year or a future generation. Then it may be too late. I appeal earnestly to the Minister to tackle this matter in the interest of the population as a whole. I am positive that a large number of members on the other side feel the same as we do in regard to this matter. Another matter which should receive the immediate attention, especially of the Minister of Transport and the technical staff of the General Manager of Railways is the speeding up of train services over long distances. People are generally inclined, even during the present time when they do not have the chance for it, to travel by car from Johannesburg to Cape Town because the train service is so slow. I do not intend dealing with the possibility of trains running faster under present circumstances, but we should consider the whole development of South Africa after the war, and the transport problem in a vast country such as South Africa is of the utmost importance. Transport will have to play a very big part in the whole of our national life. In regard to the readjustment after the war, the Railways should top the list. In conjunction with the problem of speeding up our train services, we should keep in mind the electrification of our Railways. I am looking forward to the day when we shall be able to travel in an electric train from the Witwatersrand to Cape Town and back. That will transform South Africa, that will shorten the long distances of thousands of miles and make the trains more comfortable for the travelling public. I understand that serious attention is being given at the moment to a scheme for the shortening and improvement of the railway line from Touwsriver to Cape Town. I also understand that the possibility of constructing the railway line to Worcester through Du Toits Kloof has definitely been abandoned. I feel that the shortening of the distance and the straightening out of the line, at the same time speeding up the trains and improving the facilities for the public, is such an important matter that this reconstruction of the railway line will affect the entire future of the Railways as an economic unit in South Africa. For that reason I want to appeal earnestly to the Minister and his technical staff to reconsider this matter very carefully so as to see whether the shortening of the railway line between Cape Town and Worcester will not be possible after all. I furthermore wish to urge that the electrification of the line up to Beaufort West should be considered as soon as possible. A matter which has been mentioned in the report of the Auditor-General on Railway Aceounts is the cost of electricity. In Cape Town the electric current costs about one and a half times as much as at Witbank and Colenso. The expenditure of the Railways are higher here at the Cape, mainly owing to the fact that coal has to be brought to the Cape over a long distance. I am only a layman in regard to this matter, but I think that attempts should be made to place the power station as far north as possible in order to lower the cost of transporting the coal, which is an important factor. If the power station, for instance, were built at Beaufort West and if the electric trains from there to Cape Town could be supplied with current from that power station, the cost of transporting coal would be greatly reduced. In that way the railways would be operated on a more economic basis. Perhaps the Minister may even go further and construct the power station at De Aar, which would reduce the costs still further. In regard to the electrification of the Railway line, especially from the Witwatersrand to Cape Town, the Minister should not envisage a short-term scheme, but a long-term scheme in accordance with the development of South Africa.

They might utilise the Aughrabies Falls.

Yes, that also might be possible and I hope that the Minister will keep that in mind. Another matter which gives us trouble in Pretoria is that when one arrives at present in Johannesburg from Cape Town after a tiring journey, one has to wait a long time before being able to continue the journey to Pretoria. The other day I arrived in Johannesburg a few minutes to seven and I understood that there would be a train leaving within ten minutes, to which our coach could be attached, but instead of that happening, we had to wait another 20 or 30 minutes before our coach was coupled to a later train. I think there definitely is a tendency to neglect Pretoria in this respect. We already experience the inconvenience that we often have to travel in a local train from Pretoria to Johannesburg where we have to change over to travel to Cape Town. Why is there still this additional inconvenience if we want to travel to Pretoria via Johannesburg. I am not an expert on these matters, but I think that the proposal of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) to construct a line from Krugersdorp to Pretoria deserves a thorough investigation. We know how tremendously the traffic on the Witwatersrand has expanded, and how great has been the growth of Pretoria during the last 10 years, and hon. members are also aware of the difficulties arising from the so-called bottleneck at Germiston. If a railway line could be contructed to avoid the heavy traffic between Johannesburg and Germiston, it should receive due consideration.

It has already been investigated and recommended by the Revision Commission.

So much the better. I know that the Minister will reply that no new railway lines are being constructed at present, unless a guarantee is given or the certainty exists that the line will be a paying proposition. Although that would of course be a matter for investigation, I am positive that such a line would pay, and it would mean a great relief for those areas if there were a direct connection through Krugersdorp to the main line. I now come to my last point, namely the increase in rates and tariffs. The Minister said that he maintained the old tariffs all these years and that he only now has to come with an increase. But where the end of the war is in sight, the time has come that the Minister should consider the possibility of having the special taxation on passenger fares abolished. Otherwise it will mean a double increase in the railway tariffs. This is not merely a matter of concern for the people who travel to the coast for their holidays. It seriously affects us who have to travel long distances, and the whole industrial development of the country is affected, too. The transport problem is of the utmost importance and one of its most serious aspects is the question of costs. The Minister should realise that these increased tariffs affect every aspect of the economic life of South Africa, including agriculture, industries, and all spheres of development. We know that before the war our industries had in many cases to import half of their raw materials or requirements. If those materials have to be transported over a thousand miles to the Witwatersrand and the finished products have perhaps to be sent back to their destination 500 miles away, it will be obvious how important a factor the railway tariff is in regard to the price of the finished article. The same may be said in regard to the gold mines. The Minister knows that there are several mines on the point of being closed down because the cost of working the mines is increasing as a result of a general increase in the prices of their requirements. They can no longer produce economically and are about to be closed down. Then there is the intricate problem of the deep level mines, to which the Minister of Finance referred, and that problem must be solved and the workers there should get higher wages. All these matters, however, to a large extent depend on the railway tariffs.

Before the lunch interval I was dealing with the question of tariff’ increases and the consequences thereof for the country as a whole. In these difficult days we are passing through, and the serious shortages of food, it should be remembered that the increased tariffs will have a particularly detrimental effect on the consumers in the cities. The cost of living is very high, and each of the articles on which the tariff has been raised, contributes to a further increase in the cost of living. There is no sense in granting a slight increase in pay to the Railway workers with one hand and taking it away again with the other hand through the increased cost of living. I think that the article most heavily hit by the increase in tariffs is petrol. Although at the present moment we obtain very little petrol in the interior and at the coast, we hope that that position will not be a permanent one, and I want to point to the tremendous difference in the price of petrol in the interior as compared with the price at the coast. The difference in price between Cape Town and Pretoria is not less than 7d. per gallon. If we take into consideration that petrol in the interior costs 3s. per gallon, whereas the cost at sea before landing is between 4d. and 5d. per gallon—I estimate that figure as I do not know the exact one—then it is outrageous that the railage on petrol is much more than the actual value of the petrol. This also has a marked influence on the cost of living because it increases production costs. We want to keep production costs as low as possible, because we want to be able to compete with other countries. During the war we have built up certain markets and we should like, after the war, to be able to compete on those markets, but when petrol is going to be so expensive after the war it is going to be a very important factor in the increase of production costs. Large businesses and industries use enormous quantities of petrol and the increased tariff will contribute very largely to an increase in production costs. I think if we go into the whole position we shall find that the increase in tariffs in the case of petrol is far higher than the ordinary ten per cent. Petrol is pre-eminently an article necessary for production and for everyday life. It is not an article used for pleasure only. There is a further matter which I raised before and I am glad the Minister was good enough to give his attention to it. It concerns the Innisdale area in my constituency, and I asked the Minister to provide a station there for the public. The Minister instituted enquiries and told us that the amount of traffic would not justify doing that. Another aspect of the matter is, however, the personal traffic possibilities for those people. A large percentage of them are railway men and I want to suggest that the Minister and his Department investigate the possibilities of the use of Diesel traction on the Railways. In overseas countries these engines are being used extensively and with much success to haul short trains and even one long passenger coach. They are, therefore, more in the nature of a Railway bus. Is it not possible to investigate whether it is possible in urban areas to provide the people with a means of transport of this nature? I think this should be done in regard to Innisdale in the Gezina constituency. This is a closely populated area. About 10,000 people are living there all along the railway line and it will be a tremendous benefit to those people if the Minister could do something in that direction. I now want to raise another matter in regard to the policy of the Railways. Since the coming into being of Union we have had in our railway tariff what is called the “port to port rate.” It has been the policy of the Railways to apply a lower tariff for the transport from one port to another, obviously with the intention to enable the Railways to compete against the shipping traffic. I hope the Minister will consider the advisability of investigating the possibility of developing his own shipping traffic so that he may transport goods between such ports still more cheaply than per train, and instead of having a port to port rate between places such as Cape Town and East London, he can transport goods still more cheaply in his own ships, than would be the case under the special train tariff. In that manner a cheap transport over long distances would be possible. Then there is another minor matter which is still a remnant of the old days and one which has gained some prominence during the past few years, and that is the cheaper tariffs granted to certain large distribution centres from which factory goods are spread over the whole country. These are all matters which have to receive consideration in the post-war reorganisation of our transport system. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) today pointed out that he no longer represents a village, but a town. Other towns on the other hand may have lost some of their importance, whereas some have progressed. The Minister will have to consider this problem too; he will have to reconsider the various distribution centres, and whilst on the one hand facilities may have to be taken away from some centres, other centres will have to receive them now. The whole question of post-war transport, including air services, shipping in so far as it comes under the control of the Minister, and railways, including road motor services, will have to be gone into—the whole transport system will, as we know, be reorganised, and we understand that people are already engaged in collecting information in view thereof. We shall have to investigate modem service conditions in other countries, with a view to adapting some of them to our conditions. I believe, however, that the Minister should be prepared to take the House in his confidence, and once he has evolved a comprehensive scheme for the reorganisation of transport and all its various branches in South Africa, he should submit such scheme to us. We feel that not only has the time come for the Minister to elaborate such schemes, but he should now also take the House into his confidence and submit to us all the particulars concerning the planning done by the Government. A scheme should be projected for the reorganisation of our post-war transport services. If the Minister has not yet started on such a scheme, I would like to appeal to him to tackle it as soon as possible. And discussing now the reorganisation of the post-war transport as a whole in South Africa, we specially ask the Minister in regard to our transport system to pay attention to the whole system of promotions in the service. I want to emphasise once more, and I hope that the Minister will, in regard to this matter, take notice of me, one of the younger members, that the system of promotion in South Africa is most unsatisfactory, and that in our Railway service it is of the utmost importance that a new system be introduced according to which the qualifications of a person will be allotted marks on a certain scale so that he will be able to receive the promotion to which he is entitled. I furthermore want to appeal to the Minister to be magnanimous towards those persons in the Railway service who are today debarred from being promoted on account of their having committed some offence or the other at the beginning of the war. I know the case of one railway official in my constituency who often has applied for promotion but every time is up against his immediate superior who declares that he cannot recommend him for promotion because, at the commencement of the war, the man had been charged with not handing in his rifle. This is a trifling offence which that person committed at the beginning of the war—perhaps quite innocently. Perhaps that person did not mean to commit an offence, and I feel that the time is overdue when the Minister should show magnanimity in such cases and effect the promotions on merits and merits only; in order to grant promotions on merits in the proper way, a sound and proper system should be created, as I suggested a few moments ago. A sound and proper system of evaluation of merits should be introduced so that every person will receive, as far as promotion is concerned, what is due to him. If in this way we shall execute a long term post-war scheme and in the same way regulate our promotions in the Railway service according to a certain plan and if we introduce a system which will eliminate the possibility of causing friction between the staff and the Administration such as does exist today, then and then only will the South African Railways and the whole transport system be a blessing for the country and a source of employment, and will it be able to contribute largely to the prosperity of the country and to the prosperity of the individual, on which we build our hopes for the post-war period.

I hope that the hon. Minister, after having listened this morning to the speech of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) will now realise that he will have to consult his law advisers, because the attitude he took up yesterday is that he is not empowered to apply any regulation in regard to separateness on the Railways. We shall leave the legal aspect alone for the time being. The hon. member for Gordonia dealt with it very fully, but I think it is necessary to draw attention to the attitude the Minister took up in connection with this matter. His attitude simply was that he is not going to interfere in these matters; the principle of separateness is not being applied in trams and bioscopes or anywhere else, so why should he apply it? In other words, the Minister takes cover behind what is being done in other places. I think the time has come that the Minister of Transport should realise that this principle of separateness between European and non-European is viewed in a serious light in South Africa. He apparently does not realise yet that the people here in South Africa, also people on his own side, the people supporting his own party, are in favour of the principle of separateness being applied in South Africa. The manner in which it should be applied may be the subject of certain differences of opinion, but the application of separateness as a principle is generally accepted today. I hope that since the Minister has now been informed of the legal position by the hon. member for Gordonia he will take the necessary steps to apply the principle and that he will no longer hide behind the excuse that it is not applied in buses. That has nothing to do with him. We are not dealing with the bus companies now. The fact that the bus companies are not doing their duty is no reason for the Minister not to do his duty. The Minister is the head of the largest transport organisation in this country and it is the Minister’s responsibility to apply this principle of separateness. As he has now been informed what the legal position is, we expect that the principle will be applied, especially here in the Peninsula. We’ ask that the same principle be applied to the suburban lines as is applied on the main lines where special coaches are reserved for coloureds and for natives. For the coloured persons who want to travel first class special coaches should also be reserved on the suburban lines and the principle of separateness should be strictly adhered to, in order that we may no longer have this confusion and mix-up on the Railways. I now want to say a few words about the question of promotions. In reply to the charges made yesterday night by this side of the House, the Minister flatly denied everything and stated that our complaints were without any foundation. I want to ask the Minister now what the reason is that we have to lodge these complaints time and again. Surely those complaints we have not fabricated or invented. The hon. the Prime Minister will remember that the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) last year or the year before came here with similar complaints, well-founded complaints. Does the Minister want to tell us in all seriousness that this matter has no foundation in fact? Yesterday night the Minister tried to take up the attitude that he has nothing to do with the appointments, and like Pilate he washed his hands of it. But he cannot evade the issue in that way. The Minister in his capacity of Minister of Transport is responsible for the actions of his department, whether the appointments are made by himself or the General Manager or any other person. The Minister is responsible for this department, and if we have ground for complaints about promotions taking place which should not take place, we are entitled to call the Minister to account.

I leave those matters in the hands of my experts,

I still maintain that in the last instance the responsibility is his, and he should not complain that we bring that matter up here in the House. He cannot take cover behind his experts, just as little as the Minister of Agriculture can. He is responsible and he should take care that those things do not happen. Time and again we have come here with the proofs, and I refer in particular to the cases quoted by the hon. member for Waterberg, and the Minister simply cannot Wash his hands of it and say that he has nothing to do with the matter. Of course the old story is again repeated that the most suitable man for the job is appointed. The question of who is the best suitable man is, after all a matter of opinion. But yesterday night when the Minister explained the procedure followed in making promotions, he said that the first step is that a recommendation is made by some head of a department. I maintain that this is the crux of the trouble. I do admit that, although the Minister is in the last instance the responsible person, he does not know every case in particular. That I do admit. When the Minister stated that recommendations are made, I interjected and asked him in how many cases where recommendations for promotion were made by the chief of a department, such recommendations were not acted upon. The Minister ignored my question. We were given the impression that when a recommendation is made that recommendation is given effect to in nine out of ten cases. About two weeks ago I put a question to the Minister. I do not want to mention the person’s name, but the Minister knows about this case. It concerned a promotion in the electrical department, the promotion of a man who was appointed there as a foreman in an electrical workshop, not one of the higher positions. I put a whole series of questions to the Minister in regard to this matter, and this resulted in the disclosure of that person’s whole past, when the Minister replied to the question. I think it is very clear from the Minister’s reply to that question that in regard to this promotion things are not as they should be. This man for instance already twice resigned from the railway service. Formerly he was an ordinary mechanic. Not so very long ago he was for the first time transferred to the electrical department. He has been promoted over the heads of quite a number of other men who held the same rank as he did If the Minister should think that this is a political matter, I just want to tell him that the persons who appealed against this promotion are, as far as I know, not in a single instance supporters of this side, but supporters of the Minister’s party. As far as I remember—I have not got the question here at the moment—five persons appealed against the promotion. My information is that the promotion was based on other grounds. The Minister says he cannot look after all these things, but the Minister cannot say that he is not responsible. He should not wash his hands of it. We are entitled to submit these complaints to the Minister. I now intend to discuss another matter, namely the air conference. We have listened with particular attention to the full statement the Minister made yesterday in connection with his matter. The Minister is of opinion according to his statement last night that the failure of the Chicago conference was solely due to the difficulty in regard to international control. Well, first of all it was most interesting to hear that the Minister now admits that the Chicago conference was a failure, for his colleague, the Minister of Finance, the other day denied that the conference had been a failure. The Minister of Transport admits that the conference was a failure, due to the question of international control I do not know whether the Minister has information at his disposal other than that which we obtain through the press by means of special announcements and notices. I am prepared to accept that the question of international control was a possible contributory factor, but if the Minister would read through all the news items and annnouncements, including those of the British representatives, he would notice that the matter which he calls the “Fifth Freedom” was a very important factor in connection with the failure of the conference. But leaving alone the question whether the conference failed on account of this or that reason—this is a matter of history—we now come to the position in regard to South Africa. The Minister yesterday assured us that, as far as it is within his powers, the policy of South Africa will be at any timé to conclude agreements, bilateral agreements, with other nations on the continent of Africa and also in Europe. I now want to emphasise once more that there will first be a conference of, as far as I understood him, the British territories in Africa. I believe that is the position. It is obvious that a conference where only representatives of the British territories will take part will not discuss only, technical matters concerning air services. We can assume that this conference will discuss matters of policy. The representatives present there will first of all be interested in and deal with the imperial air services which I mentioned the other day in my speech, and which have also been mentioned in the announcement from London concerning the “Commonwealth Secretariat” in regard to air services. Once the conference of British territories has made a decision as to what the policy to be followed in regard to air service will be, what hope does the Minister have to thereafter enter into agreements with other countries in Africa. The matter has then already been settled at that conference. If the Minister is really honest in his avowed desire to make arrangements with other countries, is it then not fair and just to have a conference in the first instance of all the territories of Africa, including those of Belgium, Portugal, France and Egypt? If that is so he should not confine it solely to the British territories. I am afraid therefore that to a certain extent, to a very large extent, we shall be committed, and therefore not be able to enter into any agreements afterwards. It is no use the Minister getting up here and stating, as he did yesterday, that the aerodromes in South Africa will be available for international aviation, for any nation which wants to come here. That sounds wonderful, but means very little. It is no use to make the aerodromes available if the other nations do not enjoy the full right to compete here on an equal footing. This is the problem facing us. I therefore believe that the statement of the Minister which was very long and interesting, has not brought us much further m this matter. I now want to come back to the Minister’s reply to the question I raised in regard to the water supply at Hutchinson. The viewpoint of the Minister is that the whole matter is of no importance that it is a good contract and that the Government obtains value for its money.

That, however, is beside the point. The point is whether the Government should enter into a contract with a member of the Cabinet. It is the principle which is at stake. The question of profitability or otherwise has nothing to do with the whole matter. What we have to consider is the maintenance of a certain standard in our public life. That is the point. Apparently the Minister is not prepared to do anything in the matter, and the Minister of Lands who is the Minister concerned in this matter, is apparently also not prepared to do anything. To use a colloquial expression, he is sitting tight. If that is the attitude of the Minister and the Government, good and well. We cannot force them and we cannot force the Minister of Lands. You can lead your horse to the water but you cannot make him drink. The people and the country, however, will then have to draw their own conclusions about this matter. The Minister yesterday made a great point of this not being a question of the propriety of the contract, but of the integrity of the person concerned. That is what in his opinion counts most. Is the Minister of Transport himself not a person of integrity? Has he no confidence in his own integrity? Why did he himself surrender his directorships of certain companies when he became a Minister? Had he no faith in his own integrity? Those were directorships which had nothing to do with the Government, but in spite of that the Minister took up that attitude from a point of view of propriety and he did not hesitate to resign his directorships immediately. Here, however, we are dealing with a much more serious position. The fact is not that the Minister of Lands is a director of one or other company, but we are faced with the fact that the Minister of Lands, a Minister of the Crown, is doing business with this Government to the tune of over £5,000 per annum—he sells water to the Government for £4,600 and electricity for more than £700, that is to say together £5,300 per annum. The Minister of Transport resigns his directorships, whereas the Minister of Lands enters into contracts with the Government. But the Minister of Transport shrugs his shoulders and wants us to believe that this is a matter of no importance whatever. The hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) a few days ago made an interesting speech and informed us what the position is in other parts of the British Commonwealth. He also quoted the legislation which had been proposed as a result of a special Senate Committee in regard to contracts entered into by Senators and members of the House of Assembly. What did the Minister reply to that? He said that it was quite correct that such recommendations had been made and that legislation had been drafted, but that it had not been passed. According to him this is sufficient proof that the position in connection with the contract of the Minister of Lands is considered satisfactory. The Minister continually stressed the propriety or otherwise of a member of Parliament or a Senator entering into such an agreement, and he asked how many members of Parliament, today sitting in this House, would have to resign their membership because they are doing business with the Government. But in the case in question we are not dealing with a Senator or a member of Parliament, but with a Cabinet Minister, which is quite a different matter. The other day I quoted the point of view which has been adopted by the British Parliament, and I asked the Minister whether he is not following that procedure. What was his reply? He asked what he had to do with the British Parliament. And then he added that we on this side are continually opposing England, but that we now come with the precedent of the British Parliament. We are, however, dealing here with a question of procedure of our Parliament and cur procedure is based on that of the British Parliament, and in the past when matters of procedure cropped up …

This is not a matter of the procedure of this House.

This is a question of the composition of this House and the system on which our Parliament has been based is the British Parliamentary system. Surely the Minister should not come here now and say that this is not a matter of procedure. That amounts to hair splitting. Our whole Parliamentary system has been built up according to the model of the British Parliament. Our own rules lay down that where our rules and orders as far as procedure is concerned make no provision, we shall follow the procedure as laid down in May’s Parliamentary Practice. That is the procedure we follow, but there is a very faint line of division between matters of mere procedure and the general system, and the Minister cannot deny that our general system, our whole Parliamentary procedure is based on the British system. I am often described as a person who is anti-British because I am anti-Imperialistic. But I must admit that I feel a great admiration for the British Parliamentary system in the sense that this kind of thing which we are now dealing with, will never be allowed there. The Minister knows that. He knows what happened in regard to the Marconi Company, what happened to Mr. J. H. Thomas and similar occurrences. The Minister will not deny that a matter such as this, where a Minister of the Crown has a business agreement with the Government for more than £5,000 per annum, would never and under no circumstances be allowed in England. We are concerned here with the upholding of a certain standard. To come back to the facts of the case, it was indeed very interesting to note that the Minister in his reply not once referred to the boreholes of the Railway Administration. He said this was an old contract. He bases his whole defence on the fact that this is an old contract, but the point is that this contract was first entered into with a Senator and thereafter with a Minister of the Crown. The Minister has now admitted that the Railways have their own boreholes there. The Minister should not expect us to attach much value to his argument that the water from the various boreholes differs in quality. All the water passes through the same softening plant. Water varies at many places and the water of the Minister of Lands also passes through the same softening plant. But when the Minister spoke yesterday, something rather peculiar slipped out in his speech, when he said that there are 7 boreholes of the Government there and that they are practically surrounded by the land belonging to the Minister of Lands. And then he went en and spoke about what might happen if all of them would be used at the same time. I do not know and I do not want to make a positive assertion, but my information is that there was a time when the Railways wanted to make use of their own boreholes and that they were then threatened with legal steps by the Minister of Lands in case they would use their own boreholes and his own boreholes would become weaker as a consequence. I do not say that this is correct, but that is my information, and the remarks the Minister made yesterday do give one the impression that the question actually was considered in the past whether difficulties might not develop between the Railway Administration and the Minister of Lands in regard to the possible exhaustion of the Minister of Lands’ own boreholes. In reply to a question I asked the Minister he admitted that the Administration last tested its own boreholes 15 years ago. The Minister now comes along and makes a general statement that there would not be sufficient water, but the test 15 years ago proved that 135,000 gallons per day would be available if the boreholes were pumped only 12 hours every day. I cannot say whether the Minister of Lands’ pumps pump more than 12 hours per day. That I cannot say, but on a conservative estimate of 12 hours per day pumping, 135,000 gallons of water were available 15 years ago. The Minister, however, wanted to create the impression that the supply of water would be hopelessly inadequate. I said the other day that if this were a question of absolute necessity, if there were not a drop of water to be had in the vicinity, one might perhaps still be able to say something in favour of the position, but that is not the case here. I now want to ask the Minister whether he will be prepared to have the boreholes at Hutchinson tested properly before the next Session, so that we may know exactly what the production of these boreholes is. But quite apart from the water, there is still the matter of the electricity which the Minister of Lands sells to the Railway Administration. It is quite correct that the Minister of Lands has an electrical installation there for his own pumping plant, but surely the Railways need not be dependent on that. Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to assume that the Minister of Transport were entirely dependent on the water which the Minister of Lands can supply, then he would still not be dependent as far as the electricity is concerned. Does the Minister want to tell me that the Railway Administration is not able to build its own small power station there? Last year I supplied the Minister with the figures given by Cape Town firms in regard to the cost of erecting such a power plant in order to provide the station and a few houses at Hutchinson with electricity. It would have been a relatively small amount. How does the Minister justify the electricity contract? Let us hear that from him. How does he justify the fact that the Minister of Lands supplies him with electricity for slightly more than £700 per annum. Even if he is dependent as far as the water is concerned, he cannot be dependent as far as electric current is concerned. As the Leader of the Opposition stated, the whole matter leaves a bad taste in the mouth, and I am convinced that many people in this country, not only our supporters, feel that something is wrong, and that it is improper that such an agreement should be entered into, and that in this case the procedure should have been followed which the Minister of Transport followed in his own case when he resigned his directorships on becoming a Minister of the Crown. Finally, I just want to touch upon one other small matter. It also concerns pumpers, but in this case not the pumpers of the Minister of Lands. It concerns the pumpers of the Railway Administration. In the past those people were always Europeans. Lately, however, coloured men have been taken on for this work. It is felt that this is wrong and I agree that it is wrong. Europeans are already doing pick and shovel work. This is also work for which no high degree of education is required. The coloured men in any case do not possess that, but they are being appointed in the place of Europeans.

Where?

I do not have the letter in which the places are mentioned here at the moment but I shall give the names personally to the Minister. I shall be glad if he will go into this matter.

It seldom happens that members on this side of the House are in the position to compliment a Minister on the other side. One rarely gets the opportunity of doing so, and therefore we feel happy to be able to do so from time to time. Before saying anything about Railway matters, I want to pay the hon. the Minister of Transport this tribute that he can understand me when I speak in Afrikaans, a fact which is appreciated by Afrikaans-speaking members. The Minister can understand us when we speak in our own language. He has made such progress that he can follow speeches in our language. He has set an example not only to other Ministers, but also to the officials in this country. They should follow his example. During the previous Session the Minister promised me that he would pay a visit to the Northern Transvaal and also to two villages in my constituency. A member who represents two big villages in his constituency is in an unfortunate position. He dare not mention the one because then the other is dissatisfied. Therefore he has to mention both. Fortunately the Minister paid a visit to both places, that is Potgietersrust and Pietersburg. Now I want to ask the Minister in view of the fact that he paid a visit to Potgietersrust and saw the conditions there, when he is going to improve conditions there. When is that going to happen? It is one of the most important agricultural districts in the Union. Somebody from overseas who has a knowledge of the tobacco industry, made the observation that not only the biggest tobacco farmer in the Union but the biggest tobacco farmer in the whole world resides in that district. That is Mr. Schoeman. He is a member of that well known family, and we know that there are other big farmers there and we have a strong tobacco growers union. All those people have to bring their produce to the Potgietersrust station and no proper facilities exist there. The Minister informed me that they are going to tackle the matter and I would like the Minister to inform us what progress has been made. The public bodies there did not lay down conditions. They informed the Minister that he could put a station wherever he likes, and the necessary plot would be placed at the disposal of the Railways. They are prepared to offer a piece of land wherever the Railways desire to put a station. Therefore I would like to know what progress has been made, and when we may expect a start to be made with the station building, the goodshed and all the other buildings which are required. Then I came to Pietersburg. You are aware that Pietersburg is the capital of the North. The hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swahepoel) referred to the capital of the North. I presumed that he was thinking of Pietersburg, but subsequently he said that he was referring to Pretoria. A considerable extension of the railway site at Pietersburg is contemplated. It should have been done long ago. We know under what conditions the people have to live there. It is hot only an abnormal state of affairs, but it is criminal. The health inspectors stated that the people should not be allowed to work there. I want to know what progress has been made in regard to these plans, and when a start will be made with the goods sheds and the enlarged railway site which has to be laid out. When referring to Pietersburg, there is a matter which I want to bring to the attention of the Minister, and that is the housing of the personnel. We know that that is a burning question everywhere, and in the case of Pietersburg, I want to offer a solution. We had a flying school there. Large buildings were erected, which are new and useful. They are not just wood and iron buildings, but buildings of a permanent nature which were erected during the war. Unfortunately the flying school has been closed down, and these large buildings are standing there, costing a few hundred thousand pounds. I am only guessing at the amount, because in my opinion they could not have cost less, Fortunately they are also in the immediate vicinity of the station, and I want to suggest that these buildings should be taken over by the Railways. People working on trains between Pietersburg, Pretoria and Johannesburg prefer to live at Pietersburg. It is also in the interest of the Railways that they should live there. But there are no other housing facilities at Pietersburg at the moment. Houses are even scarcer than in Cape Town, and that is saying a lot. There is an opportunity to obtain these buildings, and then the Minister will be in a position to make provision for his own personnel. When the Minister visited Pietersburg he caused serious disappointment. We were glad to see him there and to receive the news that a start will be made with the building of the new Railway station and the extension of the sheds, etc., but on the other hand we were very disillusioned. Pietersburg has always been considered as the first aerodrome in the Union for aeroplanes coming from other countries. It is the natural place for them to make their first landing. Up to now we have had an excellent aerodrome at Pietersburg. It is one of the safest in the Union. The Minister informed us that arrangements are afoot with foreign companies to take their planes right through to Germiston or one of these places, and from there the South African service will take over. In the first instance that seems to be all wrong. Why should foreigners, whether they are English, Americans or Germans, fly for a distance of a few hundred miles over our borders before our own planes take over, because our own planes can supply that service. If they land at Pietersburg, then our own planes can take over there. The customs people would be there and it will be the first landing place where inspections take place. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter and that he will make Pietersburg the first aerodrome. There has been a rumour circulating for the last few years already, and it is current now, and that it is the intention to link up Rhodesia and the Union from West Nicholson to the Beit Bridge. That is a distance of some forty miles and will link up the Union with Southern Rhodesia. Such a link will not only be to the advantage of the northern parts of the Transvaal but will be of benefit to the whole Union. I understand that Rhodesia raised objections in the past, but now they are prepared to agree. I want to ask the Minister what the position is in this regard. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) referred to the railage on fodder for annimals, a matter which affects us in the northern Transvaal in particular. As a result of the prolonged drought our farmers have to buy fodder for their cattle. That applies particularly to the large dairies we have in those parts, dairies not only catering for local consumption, but also selling milk to Johannesburg. These dairy farmers have to get their balanced rations from Johanesbnurg and other places, and the ordinary tariff applies there. Mealies are carried at a low tariff, and notwithstanding the fact that three-quarter of the balanced ration consists of mealie meal, the full tariff is charged. Locally they do not have the meat meal and blood meal to make up the rations themselves. They are forced to obtain the balanced rations from elsewhere and have to pay the full tariff. We would like the Minister to investigate this matter and to give the farmers the advantage of the reduced tariff. If need be, he can apply it to the farmers alone. Then I brought another matter to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture but I think it is as well that I should also bring it to the notice of the Minister of Transport. It concerns the transport of stock from drought-stricken areas to areas where grazing is still obtainable. The Minister must not refer me to the Minister of Agriculture, because he as Minister of Transport can meet those people. It is not something extraordinary. He need only be giving effect to Article 127 of the South Africa Act. In that Article we find the following—

We see therefore that the Minister of Transport will only be giving effect to the South Africa Act if he comes to the assistance of these farmers in connection with the transport of their stock. I have already approached the Railway Administration in connection with this matter, and I received the following reply which I appreciate. I am anxious to put this letter to the House because I am going to ask the Minister to apply paragraph (d) of the letter. In this letter the Minister says—

1. (a) Subject to the production of an affidavit (form T.125 or T.125 (A) declaring that the stock is being removed to fresh pasturage, full ordinary railage charges and truck cleansing fees are levied in the first instance for the initial journey from the home station to the place of fresh pasturage. These charges must be prepaid in cash except where, in a removal of stock from a district declared by the Department of Agriculture and Forestry to be drought-stricken, a promissory note is accepted by the Railway Department.
2. (b) Upon presentation of the duplicate copy of the affidavit (form T.125 or T.125 (A), with the “B” declaration duly completed and signed by the stock owner in the presence of a Justice of the Peace or a commissioner of Oaths, the original stock is rerailed to the original forwarding station free of railage charge.
3. (c) After the return of the stock to the home pasturage, the charges raised on the outward journey are adjusted to one-quarter of the ordinary railage charges in each direction, that is on the forward and the homeward journey.

Then I come to paragraph (d)—

The Railways know as well as I do what the position is in the northern parts of the Transvaal. Here the Minister himself says that, on an affidavit and with the approval of the Magistrate, the Railways will be prepared to accept a promissory note for the rail charges, from farmers who are removing their stock solely for the purpose of finding new pasturage. I want to appeal to him and ask that he should grant these facilities on a recommendation from the magistrate and where the magistrate declares that a part of or the whole of a district iS drought-stricken and that it is essential for the farmers to remove their stock I want to tell the Minister why I am making this request. The farmers are not inclined to have a whole district declared as a drought-stricken area. It gives the district a bad name. If that were to be the position, the Minister could for that matter declare the whole Union as a drought-stricken area. It is not necessary to do that as the Minister can cause the necessary investigations to be made by the magistrate who can assure the Minister that the position is such that those facilities should be granted. Moreover, what farmer would desire to remove his stock to a neighbouring district unless it is imperative? I hope the Minister will be agreeable to the farmers giving promissory notes, because if they have to pay cash it will mean that in order to obtain the cash they will have to sell scraggy stock, which they have to remove due to lack of grazing. There is no price for such stock and those farmers are going to have a hard time. The people have had no crop and where must they get the cash to pay for transport? Such a concession will mean a great deal to the farmers and it will be nothing unusual because it will only mean that the Minister will be giving effect to Clause 127 of the South Africa Act, viz., to promote the agricultural industry. I trust therefore that the Minister will in any case, without a district having been declared a drought-stricken area, grant these facilities. Why should a district be proclaimed? For what reason must it be proclaimed? What has the rest of the world got to do with it? Only the Railways are concerned because it is the Railways that have to grant the reduced railage. If the Railways are satisfied that the position is such that it warrants the removal of the stock to another part where there is sill grazing, and to forward fodder at a cheaper rate to such a drought-stricken district, then it should not be necessary to proclaim such a district. Then I come to another point. I want to thank the Minister for the measures he has taken to meet the farmers specially in Pietersburg, particularly in connection with the conveyance of manure. Arrangements have been made with the Department of Defence to get a certain number of lorries. The farmers in those parts were very pleased that they could make use of those lorries to convey kraal manure. There is however a difficulty in that connection which I trust will be solved by the Minister. Six lorries are granted to a farmer. It is not unreasonable because the farmer needs the manure. The manure has to be conveyed over a distance of 30 or 40 miles, and the farmer naturally has to hire natives to load those lorries. Fortunately some of the farmers were able to get convicts. But now there is an arrangement with the Department of Defence that the lorries cannot leave one at a time. They must go in a convoy. It takes perhaps half an hour to load the first lorry and then it has to stand and wait until all six have been loaded, before the convoy is allowed to leave. The same thing happens with the off-loading. The result is that they can only make one journey a day whereas they would probably be able to make more journeys if the lorries were allowed to depart singly. To the farmer it means that a whole lot of natives, 30 or 40 miles away, have to wait until the next day. The Railway system is different. As soon as one lorry is loaded, it leaves, and thus there is a chain in perpetual motion. But in the case of these lorries, the natives have to sit there and wait. They are paid for a full day’s work and they actually do about a quarter day’s work. I trust that the Minister will approach the Defence Department in an endeavour to bring about a change in the system. Then another matter. A lot has been said in regard to better pay to the lowly-paid employees in the Railway service. On a previous occasion I have already spoken on that subject. I want, however, to stress one aspect. These people are often expected to work on Sundays. We do not want them to work on Sundays, but the position simply is that these people need the money they can earn on Sundays. I think the Minister should pay the people so much for six days as if they had worked on the seventh day as well. We pointed out to these men that they work on Sundays, and that we would prefer not to have it. They immediately told us that they are compelled to do so because they need the money. I trust that the Minister will give attention to these few matters which I have brought to his notice.

I shall not take up the time of the House unduly. There is just one small matter I should like to raise. It may be regarded as being of minor importance, but it concerns a principle which is of public interest. In my constituency the Railway Department was approached to institute a bus service between Swartruggens and Rustenburg. The Administration itself then applied to the Road Transportation Board, and the farmers’ associations, the Municipalities of Rustenburg and Swartruggens and all the public bodies which were concerned in the matter strongly supported the application. We felt that it would be of great importance to those two towns and environment if a motor bus service were instituted. But we discovered later that two private buses were operating on that route with the result that although the Road Transportation Board felt that the necessity existed to institute a motor bus service, it could not, according to law, allow the Administration to run a service. The existing right of the private interests had to be protected. The position is that these private buses cannot do the work properly in that area. They do the work at a higher tariff than the Railway buses. The result of all this was that the Minister of Transport could not institute a road moor service while the private buses operated on that route. That caused a great deal of dissatisfaction, and that feeling of dissatisfaction is great. The matter even went in appeal to the Central Board. They expressed the same opinion, that it was necessary for the State to amend the law in this respect so that the Minister could be empowered to intervene in such cases where a private undertaking stands in the way of the public interest. You will appreciate that we who live in these districts and who urgently require the facilities provided by such a bus service, are dissatisfied to a great extent that these private interests should stand in the way of such a service. One of these private parties also indicated that he would relinquish his certificate if he were paid enough to stand back. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to consider the question of the introduction of the necessary legislation to amend this provision in the law and to do so as soon as possible.

It is fortunately not necessary for me, as it is for other members, to expatiate at length on the local difficulties of my constituency. The Minister was kind enough to promise to come to Humansdorp. That shows to what extent he is aware of the Railway difficulties there. I am therefore thoroughly convinced that when he arrives there and he sees how great the difficulty is, he will be very sympathetic. Today I want to speak about something which is of general interest; and I trust that where the hon. Minister does not follow me very clearly, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Havward) will explain it to him. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, who is sitting there with his face towards the Minister, reminds me a great deal of a tick-bird watching cattle. He serves a good purpose. He is of great help to the cattle, and I hope that without the Minister resenting the fact that I am drawing a rather ill-fitting comparison between him and an ox, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth will perform as great a service to the Minister and that he will be just as helpful as those white herons which attach themselves to cattle. The matter in connection with which I should like to say a few words has a bearing on the policy of the Government in connection with our coastal trade. We are in the fortunate position of having a Minister of Transport who is, a high ranking naval officer. I do not know exactly what the Afrikaans is for “commodore.” I understand it is something near to a Rear Admiral. Well, a Rear Admiral is a “skout-by-nag” (scout by night), let us therefore hope that the Minister is a scout-by-day. In any case, we have the assurance that the Minister is very interested in navigation, and we trust that if misfortune should come to South Africa, and the Minister and the Government stay in power for a long time, he will use his knowledge of navigation to the benefit of the South African coastal trade. The other day an hon. member delivered a speech in the House in connection with South African shipping. But the one aspect to which he paid no attention, was that of our coastal trade. He dealt with the question of a South African merchant fleet visiting other parts of the world. I want to confine myself to the question of trade between our own ports and neighbouring ports along the West and East coasts of South Africa. Before the outbreak of war and notwithstanding the fact that no encouragement came from Government quarters, we were busy promoting a small coastal trade in South Africa. I say notwithstanding the fact that there hardly came any encouragement from the Government. On the contrary there were signs that the Railways were exercising their influence to kill our coastal trade. In spite of that, we were building up an appreciable merchant fleet for our coastal trade. It is very important that we, like other countries who have an extended coastline, should make more use of our coasting shipping than what we did in the past. We have, for example, the question of coal transport. Coal has to be brought from Natal to Cape Town. Of course, it will mean a loss to the Railways if that coal were to be shipped, but it will undoubtedly mean a great gain to the people in Cape Town who will then get the coal cheaper. The hope exists that after the war our industries will be expanded to a great extent. We all hope that there will be an industrial future for our country. But if that industrial expansion should materialise, then it is necessary for us to find markets outside the Union for the manufactured products of our factories. The market which is closest at hand is that of the southern part of Africa. When I speak about the southern part of Africa, I have in mind the area south of the Sahara Desert. How are we going to get our products there? We cannot rail these goods to those parts, mainly for two reasons. The first is that the distance is so long that the railage will be too high. The second is that there is no railway line to many of these places. Transport by train is totally out of the question, and the only way for us to get our products there is by way of shipping. I am thinking of territories like Tanganyika and Kenya along the East Coast. Portugese territory will be a more difficult proposition on account of the protection afforded to their own Portugese products. But we have the Congo and even the territory up to Nigeria. Before the outbreak of the war a small enterprising shipping company was experimenting by sending ships as far as Lagos. I understand from the company that this experiment was very successful. There was wood, palm oil, peanut oil and peanuts which we got from these parts, and they took from us, to an increasing extent, manufactured products, and on a fairly large scale we started to trade with them in wine, brandy, raisins and other agricultural products. But that trade with those countries can only develop through our own shipping. No other country in Europe which is competing against us in those parts, is going to help us to get our products there. They will not do it if our products compete against theirs. I speak about peace-time. They will make it difficult for us to get our products there, in order that they might retain and develop the markets for themselves and the only way in which we can trade successfully with those countries, is to send our products in our own ships. Even before the industrial development which we are expecting, materialises, successful experiments had already been conducted. That is why I think that after the war, when we are able to produce more manufactured articles than previously, it will be our chance to obtain markets or enlarged markets, for our products. When we increase our production, it is necessary for us to find and enlarge markets outside South Africa. If we want to accomplish anything in that connection, we must adopt a completely new policy in respect of our coastal trade in comparison with pre-war days. Let us consider the position of our pre-war shipping and let us compare it with that of other countries. I just want to take, as an example, the lucrative activities of one small ship, the “Chubb” which operated between Cape Town and Fort Beaufort at the estuary of the Breë River. Practically all the petrol for Swellendam and vicinity was brought across the water by that little ship and was brought twenty miles up the Breë River to a small port Maigas, and thus the consumers at Swellendam obtained their petrol cheaper than what they would have, had it been railed. The Railway Department then came along and prohibited the transportation of petrol by road, and that man—it was a one-man-ship—had to abandon the undertaking of carrying goods to Maigas because they refused permission that goods which landed at Maigas, could be taken to Swellendam by road. I mention this case as an example of where the Railways intervened not only to injure the coastal trade, but in this case, also to render it impossible. Take the transport of coal from Durban to Cape Town. No assistance was given to the shipping trade, but because it was competition for the Railways, the Railways exerted all their power to damage the shipping trade as much as possible. I quote this case because no encouragement whatsoever came from the Railways. Let us consider what other countries do in this connection. I speak about nearly every country in the world. There are 35 countries who introduced special legislation for the protection of the coastal trade, to make coastal trade a paying concern. There is legislation of this nature in the other Dominions, like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, there is legislation in England, Holland, Belgium, the Scandanavian countries, France Spain, and most of the South American republics. These are all countries which protect their local coastal trade. What line does this protection take? If a ship is registered in say for instance, South Africa or the United States of America, and sails to England, touches at Southampton and from there continues its voyage to London, then such a ship which is not registered in England, is not allowed to take any cargo at Southampton for London. In other words, no foreign ship is allowed to touch at any port in a country and take a cargo from there to another port in the same country. This is a very necessary protection which we in South Africa have not had. The ships of other big Companies, such as the Union-Castle Line Company, the German Companies and American Companies which sailed round South Africa, took cargo at Cape Town for Port Elizabeth. Durban and other ports. This is not allowed in other countries. But backed up by powerful capital, they were in the position of taking cargo in Cape Town for Durban, East London or Port Elizabeth. They were strong enough to kill our own shipping and where competition existed, they were able to chase our ships off the routes, by introducing temporary cheap freight. The first thing that we have to do is to introduce as far as possible the same protection as all other countries in the world afford their shipping, provided we have a sufficient number of ships. The inter-port trade of South Africa must be furnished by our own ships. If we do not afford the same protection which is given in all other countries, we will never develop the coastal trade in South Africa. The second form of protection which is given in other countries, is that the coal for their own ships is conveyed to their ports at a cheaper rate than the coal for foreign ships. In other words to your own industry, you give a preferential rate on the coal which it needs, not for commercial purposes, but to sail their ships. In the third place it is generally applied—and we in South Africa will also have to apply it—that if a foreign ship touches here, that ship will have to pay customs duty on all its requirements, that is to say the resuirements for its voyage, not the imported articles which it is reshipping for transport to other countries, but the imported articles which a ship needs ordinarily, including food, etc. On these articles such a ship pays the usual import duty. But when their own ships take in supplies, and those supplies are imported into the country, then they are supplied free of customs duty. This is a very big concession granted by every country in the world, that wants to protect its shipping and this is something which we will also have to do in South Africa if we want to develop our shipping. I have given the three methods by means of which other countries protect their shipping. A fourth method will naturally be a Government which is sympathetically inclined towards our shipping. We have a very big railway system in South Africa. I think that when we compare our railways with those of other countries, and we take into account the fact that we have a comparatively narrow gauge track and very long distances, and that our transport per mile is probably less than that of other countries, we will find that we have a railway system of which every South African can be proud. In normal circumstances our railway system is one of the best in the world and we can be proud of it. But do not let us run away with the idea that the country is there for the railways. The railways are there for the country. The railways must not be like an octapus stretched over South Africa with its arms extended across the country, grabbing everything for itself, but they must realise that they constitute only a portion of South African’s economical structure and all the other means of transport of the country must not be made subservient to the railways. We must not always sacrifice their rights for the sake of the railways. The idea of co-ordination between the various means of transport in South Africa must take root more than what it has done in the past. We trust that now, with the institution of a Minister of Transport, where formerly we had a Minister of Railways, there will gradually arise a wider conception, a more objective outlook in regard to our transport problems. It will take time, but if we want to develop our shipping in South Africa, we will only achieve that object if we have a Minister who is actually a Minister of Transport and not only a Minister of Railways and where the railways realise that they constitute only a part of our transport problem and that they are not the most important one for the sake of whom all other means of transport must be sacrificed. I trust that when the time arrives for us to develop our markets, we will not break down, but will build and for that purpose we require our own coastal shipping. I hope this will enjoy the Minister’s special attention. The necessary protection must be given to our shipping. It will not only be of great benefit to South Africa as regards transport, but it will also contribute to a large extent to the expansion and development of our industries in South Africa.

Our South African pilots who are serving in our air force today are very greatly concerned in regard to the question of what is going to become of them after the war. Those people have been in the air all these years during the war; they have developed a mentality which will make it difficult for them to sit in an office and to work with dry ledgers or to live on a farm and carry on farming operations, or to dig with pick and shovel on erosion works. It is to be understood that these people have developed a mentality which will only make them feel at home in the type of work which they have been doing during the war, namely, in the air. I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) said in connection with our coastal shipping, and I want to make a plea for the promotion of our air services, as he pleaded for shipping. The statements which we had from the Minister do not afford very great consolation to the persons for whom we are pleading. The Minister cannot tell us at all what his plans are, and what await us on the horizon in respect of our air services. It stands to reason that these South African pilots feel that the best service they can render to the country after the war, will be to remain in the air. During the war they kept this so-called “shuttle service”—a to and fro service—going from the South to Cairo and even to Rome. They did so in a very efficient manner they gained experience and were well trained. And they know the route by heart. They are obviously the people who should do this work after the war too. But the hon. Minister cannot tell us what he proposes to do in this connection after the war. I want to make a plea today that an assurance should be given to these South African pilots who did this work, that as far as the Government can do so, their services will also be used after the war in this service. But then the Government should make an early start in order to be ready for the post-war position. I am informed that the aeroplanes, with which they kept this service going, especially the Dakotas, are excellent machines, and that it will be very easy to convert them into passenger planes. It practically means that the pilots will only have to don another uniform, that seating accommodation will have to be provided in the planes, and then they will be ready for service. The aerodromes are there; they need only be improved somewhat and equipped more luxuriously for a passenger service in peacetime, and an immediate start can then be made with the service. They know the route better than any other pilot in the world, because they have flown over it time and again. These men are concerned about the position and we do not want them to be fitted into other positions after the war where they may be a failure. They will not make a failure of this work. The Government should therefore lay down a firm policy well in advance that it is going to develop this service after the war. Preparations should be made immediately. We know that America is already making preparations for the transition to the postwar position, so that they can be ready before the other nations to render services and to do business. We ask that our Government should also do it and lay it down as a fixed policy that our Transport Department will also be able to make an immediate start with a service between the Union and Cairo, and even Europe, Italy or some other part of the European. Continent. No other nation can do the work as well as our pilots who have done it so efficiently during the war. I make an appeal to the Minister to give this matter his serious consideration and not to give us a vague reply as he did yesterday, in connection with their proposals and negotiations. The Government should adopt a firm policy that these services will immediately be exploited by the Union’s Department of Transport, so that opportunities for proper employment will be given to the men who understand this work. I trust the Minister will give us the assurance when he replies to the third reading that the South African pilots will be given an opportunity to run that service.

The hon. Minister last evening answered to the debate and he refused to appoint a commission of enquiry or a select committee of enquiry in connection with promotions in the railway service. He takes up the attitude that the General Manager and the Railway Service Board are responsible for promotions and he is quite convinced of the fact that promotions are made on merits. He accuses certain Afrikaans-speaking officials that they run to the Opposition with complaints which we then bring before this House and he gave the assurance on the floor of the House that it will not benefit these officials if they come to us. It was noteworthy that the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) who is sitting on the Minister’s side arose this afternoon in the House and said that English-speaking officials had come to complain about the conditions in the railway service in regard to promotions. That is clear proof to the Minister that these complaints are not restricted to Afrikaansspeaking people, but that they also come from the English-speaking people and that they also have the same grievances in connection with what takes place. We have plenty of proof of dissatisfaction. The Minister told the Leader of the Opposition last year that he (the Leader of the Opposition) alone knew of dissatisfaction in the railways. In October last year, as the Minister knows, his own staff association came to him in the office and English-speaking members told him that there never before had been such a measure of dissatisfaction as today in connection with promotions. Last year after I had spoken, I went to Bloemfontein and an English-speaking member who lives three hundred miles from Bloemfontein came to see me. He was an. English-speaking engineer and he congratulated me that we were taking steps in an endeavour to bring the matter to the notice of the Government, namely the degree of dissatisfaction in the service in regard to promotions. Notwithstanding all the proof that we produced and the fact that we on two occasions came to the Minister and made the request to him that for the sake of peace and goodwill in the service he should institute an impartial enquiry, the Minister does not want to allow such an enquiry. Previously the Minister made the excuse that should such an enquiry be instituted it would amount to admitting that manipulation does take place in connection with promotions in the railway service. The hon. Minister knows that previously select committees were often appointed to investigate matters where allegations had been made of this nature and it is the duty of the Minister, when we make such complaints as we have made, to say: “Well, I am not afraid, the matter will be investigated on its merits.” Then the public will be satisfied and when the complaints are unfounded, then the Minister will satisfy the country and the House and his officials. But the Minister simply refuses. He takes up the attitude that promotions take place on merit notwithstanding the fact that not only our side but his own people complain that that is not the case. Now I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister. He announced last evening that he is completely convinced that there is no favouritism, no discrimination, no manipulation in regard to promotions in the railway service, that everything is in order and that promotions take place according to merit. Previously the Minister endeavoured to defend the promotions and in this connection I want to mention one case. He says that his chief officials in the railway service are the competent people who, with the General Manager, can say which people are qualified for promotion in the railway service. That was the attitude he took up last evening.

Now I want to ask him whether that was the position in connection with the post of £1,600 which fell vacant in the engineering department. According to the Minister the Chief Engineer would be the only person who would be in a position in that department to decide on the capability of a person. What happened? The unilingual Chief Engineer recommended a certain person but the recommendation was not accepted and sent back. The post was graded lower and the excuse of the Minister to me was that he wanted to have a wider choice. In other words, he wanted to force somebody in, who was a junior, compared to the other person who, according to the Chief Engineer, was particularly capable. This person was appointed and ten weeks after his appointment, he was taken away from there and put into an administrative post of £1,600. Does the Minister actually want to tell this House that he specifically graded that post lower because there was an outstanding engineer who had to take the position, whereas this man ten weeks after his appointment was removed and placed in a administrative post? Does the Minister want to come before the House with such an excuse? The Minister knows just as well as I do that it is merely a case of manipulation in the railway service, and the Minister will not escape by refusing to appoint a Select Committee. Take the case of the Superintendent (Parliamentary). For many years there was one Superintendent (Parliamentary). Then the Minister created a second post of £1,600 and appointed Col. Leverton to it. When he reached that place he was sent away as assistant manager of Airways at £1,800. Now the one post here disappears again, suddenly it is no longer necessary. The elevator had done its work. The official was brought up into this position, and now the elevator can disappear, everything is all right. This is done not once, but repeatedly in the service. His own English-speaking officials say that that is so, his own members come with complaints in regard to what takes place. But notwithstanding this evidence, the Minister denies an enquiry. He says everything is in order in the service and there exists satisfaction. I want to tell the Minister that he will hear complaints in this House so long as discrimination takes place. He owes the House an account, just as his officials have to account to him. We will continue to hammer at this so long as this injustice takes place in the railway service. The Minister in replying to a question told me that Mr. Kemp, a railway servant, an artisan, to whom 3s. 6d. and 4s. an hour is paid had been roasting meat during Navy Week at Bloemfontein for several hours on successive days. He gets 3s. 6d. to 4s. per hour to roast meat.

Where did he get the meat?

I suppose on the black market. It was for Navy Week. Could they not have employed a native or someone else who earned less? Why did they have to use an artisan while the railways are so short of men that they cannot do the necessary repair work and must get the gold mines to do repair work? So much so that last year they had to pay the gold mines £68,000 for repair work for the railways? They cannot do the work but an artisan is roasting meat. Now he has done something else. The Minister has put up the tariff by 10 per cent. and that is not all. He has added 6d. to a bed; he has added 6d. to a mattress. He has increased the price of meals on the railway. In other words he has done everything to get hold of extra income. Now I just want to mention one case. Previously he hired that small mattress to people at 3s. per night. That means approximately £4 10s. per month. The mattress remains there year in and year out ; there is no extra expenditure attached to it. Such a small mattress earns £4 10s. per month for the railways. If the mattress lasts for ten years then it earns £500, and the Minister actually comes along and raises the tariff by 6d. Now you have to pay 3s. 6d. per mattress. Every possible step is being taken to get hold of funds. But on the other hand funds are being squandered. Now I would like to speak to the Minister about a couple of local matters. I went to see the Minister personally in this connection at Pretoria. I went to see the General Manager of railways and I went to see the Assistant General Manager in connection with the case of Mr. J. S. Pretorius. Mr. Pretorius is an employee who has been in the railways for many years. He lost his hand. He was then given a clerical post and I have been assured that he was a very capable employee in his post. On a certain day the police went to search his house and when he was phoned that his house was being searched, he fled. Nevertheless he was caught and interned and later released. What the accusations against him were I do not know. I believe that there were accusations against him that he was associated with Leibbrandt but there never was a single accusation actually brought in against him. In this country the law is that a man is innocent until he has been proved guilty. On a previous occasion the Minister promised me that employees who had been interned and released would be taken back into the railway service unless proof was produced that they had not done their work or unless some other offence was proved against them. This was not done in the case of Mr. Pretorius. Now I want to ask the Minister on what grounds he refuses to take Pretorius back into the service. He has refused; the General Manager has refused, and the Assistant General Manager has refused and I want to know from the Minister on what grounds he refuses to take Pretorius back into the service. There is one important aspect of the case, and that is that Pretorius was injured in the railway service, and we know that he had the choice of taking a pension or otherwise the Railway Department would retain him in the service so long as he could work, at the salary he was then getting. Pretorius elected to remain in the railway service, and not to take a pension, and now he has simply been forced out of the railways. Now the Minister will tell me that he left the railway service before he was interned. But I want to tell the Minister that there are precedents in the railway service of people who had voluntarily left the service and were later taken back again. Last year I personally placed a petition before this House of a person who was asking for condonation of the period he had been out of the service for pension purposes. I would be pleased if the hon. Minister of Finance would give the Minister an opportunity of listening to me. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not tell the House when he replies to the third reading on what grounds Pretorius is kept out of the service, why he is not taken back into the railway service. If he is not taken back it means that he is a poor white. He has lost his arm and he is not suited to other work. He was, however capable of doing the work which he did in the railways. There is absolutely nothing to be proved against him and the only wrong he did was to leave the railway service a short while ago before he was interned. But now I say that there are precedents which I will mention to prove that the Minister has taken back such people into the services in the past. Why cannot he take Pretorius back into the service? The accusation against Pretorius has absolutely nothing to do with the case. If the Government is in a position to prove that Pretorius has committed an offence, a person may well say that he should not be taken back. But in this case you cannot say that; the Minister must treat this matter on its merits and take Pretorius back into the railway service otherwise he will be responsible for the fact that this person cannot earn his bread and that he will be relegated to misery. I wish to bring another matter to the attention of the Minister and that is in connection with Road Motor Bus drivers. I think that these people truly have a grievance. I trust that the Minister will give his sympathetic attention to the position of these people. The Minister has now reduced the working hours. He has reduced the working hours from 48 to 46 and he has increased salaries. These people have to work 9 hours per day and in many cases they have to work much longer. Nine hours is the minimum. In the first place the employee must work nine hours per day. In his spare time he has to inspect the bus and see to it that the bus is clean and in good order. Furthermore, he has to pass an examination to prove that he has technical knowledge of repairing his own bus. He must be capable of repairing any faults which arise in the bus. This person must work eighteen hours overtime per month without his receiving a penny therefor. Only after he worked eighteen hours overtime does he get paid for further overtime. I want to ask the Minister whether there is any department where the position is that a man has to work eighteen hours overtime before he gets overtime pay? The bus drivers have a fixed time to load and off-load the bus. The Administration gives these people fifty minutes in which to load. The department’s employees must load the bus—a load of ten tons, but if these people take longer than fifty minutes to load the bus, then the poor bus driver has to pay the penalty. It is put to his account, whereas he has no say in the matter, whilst he has no responsibility. He cannot hurry these people who are doing the work, but nevertheless it is counted into his time. The bus drivers call at places where there is a motor bus agency. These agents then assist in loading the bus. The agents, the bus driver and the assistant, must load the bus and they get fifty minutes for that. I think they get fifteen minutes extra. That is to say 65 minutes. If they take longer than that then that is also counted into the time of the bus driver. He then does not get overtime if he has to work longer. These are all circumstances which are unfair to these people. Furthermore if a person is driving along the road and gets stuck in a mudhole he is expected to remain with the bus. They are not allowed to leave the bus. For instance the bus driver is not allowed to walk to a neighbouring farm to fetch food or water. He has to remain with the bus, even though it be for three days. He is responsible and he may not leave the bus. These are unhearded-of circumstances; it is nothing but a species of slavery. If that person is on the road and a bus breaks down he must wait there until another bus comes to take over the goods, He may send his assistant but he may not personally leave the bus. He may not even go and fetch water or food at a neighbouring farm. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he does not consider that it is unreasonable to treat these people like that? I want to ask him whether he will not institute an investigation and endeavour to give some relief to these people. How does this department of the service compare with other departments of the service? The Minister must not treat the one as fish and the other as fowl. There should be a proper proportion so that every employee can feel that he is not being done an injustice as compared to the other employees. I have gone into this matter and I feel that these people truly have a grievance. They have gone to the Minister and he has done nothing. I now want to appeal to him to see whether he cannot grant some measure of relief. Then there is, for instance, the case of the road motor driver (departmental) attached to the electro-technical department. This person in Bloemfontein made application for a bonus. He is entitled to a bonus. He made application for that bonus and the authorities in Bloemfontein considered that he was entitled to such a bonus. They then forwarded the papers to Johannesburg but they received no reply. Later they again wrote and no reply was forthcoming. For three years now this person has been endeavouring to get that bonus to which he is entitled and he receives no reply from the higher authorities. He has actually sent telegrams in an endeavour to get a reply from the higher authorities, but in vain. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) the other day pointed out that there is continually pressure being applied to the Administration on the part of railway employees to get what is their due. The hon. member for Winburg fought the Administration and in the end he had to go to the Minister and after five years these men were paid out ultimately. Here you have a case of a man who according to his statement is entitled to a bonus. The papers have been forwarded from Bloemfontein to Johannesburg but no reply has been received. These things are simply ignored, just as happened in the case mentioned by the hon. member for Winburg. I want to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister. I want to ask him to give his attention to this matter, and to see to it that the man receives the bonus due to him. He is an official of the Administration, he does his duty towards the Administration. Why should he have to fight for years and years to get this money from the Administration? These small matters cause dissatisfaction in the service. If a man is entitled to something and he applies for it, the head office should not merely sit down and do nothing about it. I want to ask the Minister to put his foot down and to rectify these small things. It creates a lot of dissatisfaction and bitterness in the service and if he really wants a satisfied railway service he should endeavour to assist such people. I want to ask the Minister to consider the matters submitted by me and to promise us that he will see to it that justice is done.

Before the hon. Minister replies to the third reading, I want to bring a few minor matters to his notice which have been overlooked and which are also of importance, and I hope the Minister will give his attention to them, and that he will give me some explanation or other or a reasonable reply. I want to ask the Minister whether he is in a position to inform the House what the total amount is which was collected during the year 1944 in respect of fines as a result of disciplinary action which was taken in his Department; whether he is able to do so and whether he will be good enough to give us that information in replying to the debate. Then I also want to ask the Minister whether he can explain why there is such a big difference in the punishment which is imposed in the Department of Railways in respect of the same offence. Why is there not more uniformity? One finds, for example, that a man is sometimes suspended for a certain offence while another man is totally dismissed from his position for the same offence. Then one finds that another man, for the same offence, gets off with a fine but still retains his position; and then again one finds cases where the man is only reprimanded for the very same offence. It seems to me that this is a very haphazard way of taking disciplinary action, and I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot lay down a more reasonable policy so that there will be uniformity with regard to the infliction of punishment for offences, and so that A will not be dismissed from the service while B is merely fined for the same offence or while C is only reprimanded for the same offence. I received information in regard to a ticket examiner who gave a coupe to a sick man on the train from Durban to Pretoria. This man was so seriously ill that he had to undergo an operation, and he did, in fact, undergo an operation. Because this ticket examiner gave him a coupe, the superintendent fined him £11. His name is Greyling. Because he helped a sick man and gave him reasonable facilities, as any decent person would have done, he was fined £11. The superintendent stated that he must act only on written instructions and that he should not use his discretion. This poor man was fined £11. Does not the Minister think that that superintendent ought to be fined £111 for the inhuman attitude which he adopted towards this man? If the train had been loaded to capacity, one might have understood it, but if there is room, why should this passenger who, after all, paid his fare, be forced to travel with other people while he is ill? That is all that happened in the Greyling case. The ticket examiner put him in a coupe and for that reason he was fined £11. I want to ask the Minister whether he thinks that is the type of treatment which should be meted out to a loyal official? Then I should like to put this further question to the Minister in connection with disciplinary action. One often notices that a man is brought before the court for some contravention or other. The magistrate or the judge punishes him, and after he has been punished departmental action is still taken against him and additional punishment inflicted. I think that is going a little too far. The Minister knows that last year we mentioned a few very hard cases to him, and I want to ask him whether he does not think he should adopt a more humane and more sensible policy when it comes to the application of disciplinary action against officials. We must understand that if any man who is treated so cruelly, remains in the service, one cannot expect him to work with a good will and initiative and that he will give his full loyalty to his superiors in the department. Surely, one cultivates an inherent dissatisfaction on the part of officials against the Department as a result of this haphazard application of punishment, and I hope the Minister will give me a reply to this question when he gets up.

Unfortunately the Minister is not here at present. I notice he is entering the House now. I just want to remind the Minister of the fact that last year I brought the question of the heavy traffic on the railways to his notice. In view of the present position I ask that an opportunity should be given to the owners of private motor vehicles to accumulate their petrol so that they can go on holiday with their own motor cars when the traffic is heavy on the railways. It was then regarded as impossible by the Minister of Transport, but at the beginning of December it was announced that it would be possible to avail oneself of this opportunity. The result of the late announcement was that practically no one was able to avail himself of that privilege, because the people did not have an opportunity of accumulating their petrol. Now I want to ask the Minister of Transport whether he cannot make it earlier this year so as to give motor car owners that opportunity. I am not asking for supplementary petrol, but that an opportunity be given to persons to accumulate petrol, in those cases where they do not use more than their basic ration. If they are able to accumulate the basic ration which they get during the course of the year, there is surely nothing wrong in allowing them to use it at the end of the year for holiday purposes. On the contrary, in view of the heavy traffic on the trains, it will bring about a great relief. After all, it is a fact that everyone uses the whole of his basic ration every month. If the person is allowed to use the petrol which he is able to accumulate during the year from his basic ration, for holiday purposes, it will encourage him to save his car and tyres, and at the end of the year he will be able to relieve the heavy traffic on the railways.

I want to point out to the hon. member that the question of petrol falls under the Minister of Economic Development.

I mention it here merely because it also falls under the Minister of Transport.

It does not fall under the Minister of Transport.

I now confine myself to another matter, namely, the construction of a railway line from Jammersdrift to the northern direction. Last year a deputation came to see the Minister in connection with the construction of this line. The hope was expressed that the Railway Board would pay us a visit with a view to seeing what possibilities there were of constructing such a line. Unfortunately the Railway Board did not turn up. Subsequently a letter was addressed to the deputation concerned that the matter had been investigated and that it appeared that it would result in a deficit of approximately £15,000 at the end of the year if such a line were built, and that the line could consequently not be constructed. Now I want to put this to the Minister. The public is of opinion that it can be done, because this line would be built in the most productive part of the Free State, and it would give a connection from East London to Durban. Ladybrand, Clocolan and Marquard would benefit and also Hobhouse which has no railway line, of course. The fact that it will take a second main line through the eastern Free State will to a great extent have this effect that the line will pay for itself, without any further traffic. But I can give the Minister the assurance that that part is so productive that if there is any part in the Free State where it is worth while constructing such a line, it is that part; and we look forward to a visit in the future from the Railway Board and even from the Minister so that he can see what he can do in connection with that line. Another matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister is the Marseilles station. On the last occasion I spoke I was informed that the Marseilles station had already been placed on the list of stations to be rebuilt. That is more than a year ago. I again made enquiries and the reply was that at that time there was no material. I just want to emphasise that this station plays a very important rôle on that line. This station serves the branch line from Maseru, and it is one of the oldest models in the Free State. There is not even a proper platform. I am glad the Minister has decided to place it on the list of stations which will have to be built, but I want to ask the Minister to give his attention to this matter so that a new station can be built as soon as possible. I hope he will reply to that. Finally there is the question of the trains enquiries office at Cape Town station. Last year I raised the matter and I was promised that a change would be brought about, that the Administration would make available one of the dock offices for those persons. Last year I drew the Minister’s attention to the fact that the enquiry office has a very detrimental effect on the health of the staff. It was condemned by the Health Inspector and time and again the persons employed in that office have to report sick because they are unable to perform their duties. The office is very cramped and stuffy. The clerks have to work in a draught. No decent person would be anxious to spend his whole life in that office. Surely it is a fact which cannot be denied that enquiries 6are often made while there are dozens of people at the station. There is no fresh air, and there is usually a person at every window making an enquiry. The atmosphere is very suffocating and the office cramped. The reply one gets is that there is no space to enlarge the office. I want to go so far as to say that it is a disgrace to the railways to advance the argument that there is no space to enlarge that office slightly. It is situated in a draught; during winter those officials are continually in a draught. The two doors are opposite each other. In winter they grow numb with cold and in summer the atmosphere is stuffy. I hope the Minister will give his serious attention to this matter. I know that with the building of the new station in the future there is a good deal to be said for it, but it has been estimated by experts that it will not cost more than £100 to enlarge that office temporarily and I think that for the sake of the health of the people employed in that office and who render excellent services, it is essential to bring about a change.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for what he has done in my constituency. In the first place I would like to thank him for improvements brought about in that area recently, especially improvements to the permanent way between Hutchinson and Williston. That line was subject to frequent washaways in spite of the fact that we do not often have rain. They are now improving it and I hope that the washaways will be far less frequent than in the past. I also wish to thank the Minister for the improvements to buildings in the constituency, especially on the main line. Several of the railway stations have been improved and also the workmen’s cottages and on behalf of those people I would like to thank the Minister for the improvement; and also for the erection of the new railway goods sheds at Carnarvon, which I hope will be completed before the new wool season starts in July. There is however one matter which is very pressing. Yesterday I had a telegram from farmers in that district saying that there is an acute shortage of trucks to remove poor stock to new pasturage. I also had another telegram from a farmer today to say that there would be no trucks available before April for him. This poor stock has to be moved urgently. They cannot live until then. I hope the Minister will provide trucks.

May I have a copy of the wire?

I have handed it to your department and I know they will go into the matter. I just wanted to have an opportunity of mentioning it here because it is most urgent. On behalf of those farmers there I would like to mention that the personnel have given us every assistance in this area and we are very grateful for that. This is not an actual complaint but one or two farmers have told me that there have been rather long delays on the stations where stock has to pass en route to pasturage in the Free State. One man told me that his stock was held up at De Aar for six hours, and another man’s for five hours. This may have been quite unavoidable, but I hope the Minister will give fresh instructions that this stock must be moved with the least possible delay. There is just one other matter I wish to refer to. I have just received a copy of a memorandum sent to the Minister from Richmond; it was sent by the Town Council, the Divisional Council and the Farmers’ Association there. It appears that for many years they have tried to get a railway from Merriman to Richmond, and after a long time, in 1929, the Railway Board visited Richmond and promised them a large bus centre. This has been carried out but they now find that the buildings there are quite inadequate for the service, and they seem to have done their best to assist the railway authorities by providing cheap land. They have supplied erven at nominal rates and they feel that the time has now arrived that the necessary buildings for the improvement of the bus station at Richmond should be put up. I trust that the Minister will consider this matter, which appears to be urgent.

The Minister has introduced certain general increases in wages for his officials on the railways, and that announcement was received with great rejoicing. But it did not take long for the officials to discover that the Minister had applied pruning measures to such an extent that the reductions in various respects exceeded the increases that were held out for the future. When we examine the Minister’s new system, there are a few matters that immediately strike us. The first is that the fidelity allowances which previously were not paid are now made obligatory under the new system. The second is that the five per cent. responsibility allowance has been killed by the Minister’s new system. The third is that the rent rebate has been reduced, and there is a danger that it will disappear entirely. The fourth is that the pension fund contributions have been increased, and the fifth is that the sick fund contributions have in all respects been made higher. In the circumstances we cannot take offence at the officials accusing the Minister of having put into the righthand pockets of the officials what he has taken out of their left-hand pockets. That is what it amounts to. I want to expose the new scales of payment of the Minister’s to show how unsatisfactory it is and that the dissatisfaction of the officials is absolutely well grounded. Incidentally, I want to say that I am excluding the second grade and third grade clerks. I am glad to Say that they have derived some benefit from the increase. We come in the first place, to the motor transport drivers. They have been treated very badly. Under the old scale they got £21 7s. 8d.; they now stand at £23 14s. 6d. That is considerably higher. But we find on the other side that the cost of living allowance remains at £5 12s., and the five per cent. responsibility allowance falls away; that amounted to £1 1s. 10d. The rent rebate has been reduced from £1 12s. 6d. to 18s. When we take everything into consideration we find that such an official under the old scale drew £30 4s., while under the new scale he draws £30 4s. 6d. That shows an increase of 6d. But now the Minister comes and takes more money out of his pocket. The pension contribution is now 4s. 5d. and the sick fund contribution 3s. more than before. That is altogether 7s. 5d. more as against an increase of 6d. that he receives. The man thus receives 6s. 11d. less under the Minister’s scheme than he did before. Those are figures that we cannot get past. That class of man has been done an injustice, because his income has been reduced. They are worse off under the new scale than under the old scale. In respect of Grade 4 clerks, it is not very different. Their maximum salary under the old scale was £264, and thus they were exempt from taxation. It is now £275, but they now have to pay taxation, and in addition to that increased railway fares. Their position is really worse than before. Many of the artisans say straight out that they would rather revert to the old system. The curtailment of the benefits that I have mentioned make them worse off under the new system than under the old. I do not want to go into the details. I have compared the figures, and there is no doubt that the artisans are worse off under the new system than under the old. The Minister stated that the constables receive considerable benefit under the new system. I have tried to analyse the figures. Under the old system the constable received £25 5s. Under the new system he gets £27 15s. The allowances for cost of living remain the same. The rebate for rent has been reduced from £2 13s. to £1 19s. The five per cent. allowance has disappeared. The fidelity allowance must be paid. This means that the people benefit by £1 4s. 7d., which is not the beautiful position which the Minister described here. There has been an improvement, but it is very slender. If one looks at the reductions on the one side and the increases on the other, I say that most of the officials are worse off than they were previously. Then the Minister stated here that there are no railwaymen who receive less than 10s. a day. There are employees who get less. Take the bookstall attendants, and those who work in the women’s waiting rooms. They receive 5s. 7d. which amounts to £7 5s. a month. Unmarried railway workers get 5s. 6d. if they are under 21 and 9s. when they are over 21. Then we also want to ask the Minister not to calculate these increases in terms of the £ note, but in terms of the purchasing power of the £, and then we can see how poorly off the railway officials really are. Then there is another matter in regard to which I wish to say something, namely, the question of appointments and promotions. A great deal has already been said about that. Last year in this House we took the field against the Minister in reference to the appointment of Mr. Chittenden in Johannesburg. He has now gone on leave. I put a few questions to the Minister in connection with that, and his answer was that Mr. Chittenden had gone on ordinary leave and not on compulsory leave. I shall accept that. But now I ask the Minister, because it makes us very restless in Johannesburg, why an official is acting over the heads of other senior officials in his place. Mr. Chittenden has been relieved by a junior. Why has Mr. Chittenden not been relieved by the senior official who will be his successor? I want to express this hope, if the rumours that are circulating amongst the public are correct Mr. Chittenden may never return, and I hope that the Minister will, in heaven is name, see that promotion will be effected this time on the grounds of fairness and justice and nothing else. Then there is another matter. The General Manager will shortly have to retire. It is peculiar, but the Assistant General Manager’s time is also almost up. What is happening at the moment in his office? Representations are being made from the side of the Government benches to ask the Minister to re-appoint the General Manager when his term of office has expired. We should like the Minister to reassure the country and the railway officials by a clear explanation of what he is going to do. Is he going to re-appoint the General Manager who is at present serving when his time has expired, or is he going to do the right thing and allow the post to be filled by the next senior officer? We must know that in this House, and the railwaymen must also know it. They want to know it. I want to express the hope that the Minister will not give us an evasive answer. The hon. Minister must not act as he tried to do in the case of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper). The Minister did not answer his question, but he became personal and sulky. The questions that we put here are being put by us in the interests of the country, and in the interests of the Administration and of the people of South Africa. Accordingly I expect that the Minister will answer these questions quietly and calmly.

I shall not detain the House long at this late stage of the debate, but I should like to touch on one or two small matters. In the first place, on behalf of the farmers in the Western Province, I want to thank the Minister of Transport very cordially for what the railways have done during the past year in reference to the provision of kraal manure. I do not think I am overstating it when I say that never in the history of South Africa has such a large quantity of kraal manure been transported at so low a tariff to the farmers in the Western Province as was the case last year. In that connection the railways performed a national service. I have not heard any of the representatives of the farmers thanking the Minister of Railways for that. As a result of the shortage of fertiliser kraal manure became very necessary especially for the fruit farmers of the Western Province, and the Railways have in that connection conferred a great service by obtaining lorries from the Defence Force and putting the suppliers in a position to convey the kraal manure to the railway stations. We all appreciate that highly. There is one matter in connection with the provision of manure in the Western Province that I would like to touch on. I believe that the same position does not apply in the north in respect of the supply of manure. It is the very irregular provision of empty trucks. The result is that those who today are supplying kraal manure in the Western Province are obliged to sell it at £7 10s. a truck, but if they could get a regular supply of empty trucks then they assure me they would be able to sell it for £5 10s. a truck in the Western Province. As the position now is, the supplier may receive on one day from ten to twenty trucks that he has to fill. The result is that he must keep on 30 to 50 natives to load the trucks. Then perhaps the following day there will be no empty trucks, with the result that the working folk are idle and yet they still have to be paid. This means that the price of the manure to the farmers in the Western Province has been driven up appreciably. I want to ask the Minister to make an enquiry into that, and if it is possible he should so arrange the flow of empty trucks so that these people would receive a number of empty trucks every day. This would ease the position very considerably. Then there is another matter that I should like to touch on on behalf of my constituency. It is the position at Wellington station. I think that there are few members who drive round by car in the Western Province who do not have to wait a half hour or longer at the railway crossing at Wellington. I do not know how many hours each day thousands of motorists waste waiting for the booms to go up. I want to direct the attention of the Minister of Railways to that, and if it is possible I want to have a promise that when the railway is electrified to Touws River an overhead bridge will be constructed.

When I spoke yesterday I put my case quite objectively. I was not personal, I did not name a single person. But the Minister, in his wisdom, resorted to personalities and was more than personal. If he wishes us to carry on the fight in that way, I am quite prepared to do it. But I feel, although I have been attacked, that I do not want to damage the dignity of the House. On the contrary, I feel that the effort that has been directed from the other side to refute many of the points we drove home has not contributed to the dignity of the House. I am not worried over their efforts, nor am I afraid of them. I am prepared to meet their attacks. I want to ask the Minister, in the first instance, if he is prepared to lay on the Table the docu ments referring to my discharge from the railway service, and to my later reinstatement. I repeat this request to the Minister, and I notice that he seems to be indicating that he is willing to lay those documents on the Table. If the Minister is prepared to do so, I do not need to dwell on this any longer. If, however, he is not prepared to do this then I must narrate what occurred. I shall be satisfied if he will lay the documents on the Table. Seeing that it seems that he will not do that, I want to put the other side of the matter briefly. As the case against me has been put, I believe that you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to do this. After the Government found it advisable to ban the Ossewabrandwag, I think it was on 1st March, 1941, I was in South-West Africa as a senior official. On the 6th March after I left the service and was walking home, one of the officials came to me and said: “Mr. Klopper, I want to consult you over a matter.” He then explained that a few of them had assembled and that they wanted my advice. I went with him to the place where they had gathered, and asked them what advice they wanted. He then said that the Government’s proclamation in the Government Gazette prohibited the Ossewabrandwag movement and they wanted my advice. The proclamation read that any official that took part in the doings of the Ossewabrandwag was punishable. The head commandant, or general, I do not know what he was, was a railway’ official, and if the other officials handed their resignations to him, then under the terms of this proclamation it could be charged against him that he was doing work in connection with the Ossewabrandwag in receiving resignations and sending them on. They wanted to get over that difficulty, and they asked me for assistance. I then told them that all they could do was to resign immediately, and even though they did not hand in their resignations in writing they could resign verbally, because that would be just as good. I said to them: Do it all verbally, and then you will be witnesses for each other that you have resigned. Do you know what the. Railway Administration did then? Then charge was that I had taken part in the actions of the Ossewabrandwag. Because I gave guidance to these officials and told them what they should do, that they should respect the proclamation and be obedient, I was charged with taking part in the operations of the Ossewabrandwag. You will realise that this was a stupid thing. What is more, they did not only have a charge against me, but they appointed a commission of enquiry. It was a commission of senior officials that they selected, and I do not think that they could have got a worse set than when they appointed that commission. The Commission of Enquiry found against me, and I was retired by the General Manager. He discharged me from the service. I had more than 30 years service, and there had never been a bad mark on my record. I was a senior official, and they discharged me because I gave other officials the right advice.

Apparently you gave them the wrong advice because the Minister himself was an honorary member.

I wonder whether he resigned. Possibly he is still liable to punishment. I wanted to leave the matter there because why should I be troublesome about it. But the other officials came to me and said that I dare not leave the matter where it was because then the General Manager would have the audacity to treat them all in the same way. I then appealed and the result was that the General Manager, the Minister and the whole Railway Board had to reinstate me honourably in the service with payment of arreas of salary in respect of the whole period I was out of the service. They also had to pay all the costs, plus the cost of my journey from Windhoek to my farm near Johannesburg and back to South-West Africa. That is what the Minister now uses, together with his officials to put a frontbencher on his side of the House up to saying that I had got the “sack”. Does that enhance the dignity of this House? Of course it was hard for the General Manager to reinstate me in the service. But the General Manager took such a step on one occasion and I hope that neither he nor the succeeding General Manger will venture on it again. They have learned a lesson for the rest of their lives.

Where is Barlow now?

He has run away. Pardon me saying so Mr. Speaker but he is cowardly. It is difficult to find words to present the conduct of such a member in the true light while at the same time preserving the dignity of this House. I returned to the service. It was not profitable for me to go back. I felt, however, that I owed that to my fellow officials. I remained there for a few years, and then I voluntarily retired from the service. I worked with many senior English-speaking officials. Right through they unreservedly recommended me for promotion and for acting in any post up to three grades ahead of the post I was then filling. Nothing was ever said against the way I discharged my duties. Mr. Speaker, now I return to the points that I mentioned yesterday. Last year, which was the first year that I was in this House, I mentioned several matters and put them before the Minister on their merits. He evaded those matters, and did not attempt to answer one of them on its merits. I know that he is unable to do that. And he knows as well as I do that he cannot give an answer in regard to the matters that I laid before him yesterday. He dare not venture to reply to them and his officials also know that he is unable to find an answer. He has pushed them to one side because he knows that there is no answer. Let us therefore behave as gentlemen towards each other and not be personal. I did not mention one name. I have never mentioned names here unless I have been compelled to do so. Though I am sitting on the back benches let us respect one another and treat each other chivalrously. If the Minister is prepared to go into these matters should I divulge them to him personally, if he will accord them reasonable consideration, then I shall give him personally many of the cases which otherwise I would feel obliged to bring up in the House. But my experience in the first year was that the Minister was courteous at the commencement but in the course of time he became more and more obstinate and more and more accepted the bare advice of his senior officials. He became just the mouthpiece in this House of his officials. He has become their rubber stamp. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) alluded here today to a fine of £11 10s. that was inflicted on an official. We know that the times are bad, and people find it difficult to provide their families with food and clothing in these days. I want now to mention the case of a driver who has had several years service in the railways. In January, 1943, he was charged in regard to something he was alleged to have said in August, 1942—not something he had done, not something in connection with his work, but something that he had said. Do you know when he was supposed to have said this? It was when he was off duty. The Administration did not state what he was alleged to have said, but he was supposed to have said something when he was off duty, and in January, 1943, they charged him in connection with what he was reported to have said in August, 1942. This man is a hard worker. We talk here about long hours. The train staff in South-West Africa work up to 55 and 60 days in the month, and the man is seldom at home. Do you know, Sir, what was the sequel to what he said in August, 1942? The Administration’s officals found the man guilty and fined him £25. Then a request was made to his chief that he should be allowed to pay this terrific amount in instalments. It is usual on the railways when a man is fined, if for instance a poor man is fined. £1 he can pay it off in monthly instalments of 2s. 6d. or 5s. But what did they do in this instance? A deputation went to the senior official concerned to ask that the man should be allowed to pay the amount in instalments, but the senior official refused. It had to be paid off in one sum. And yet the Minister says he does not know about dissatisfaction in the railway service. Now I shall bring up the matter which I did not have the opportunity of stating yesterday. In October, 1940, the stationmaster at Leslie was nominated by his system manager for the post of assistant port officer at Walvis Bay. He regarded him as the most suitable man and the General Manager’s office had also approved the appointment, while the Service Commission indicated him as the most suitable man and he received the appointment of assistant port officer at Walvis Bay. The port officer at Walvis Bay was asked after the man had been on trial for three months whether he considered that the man was fitted for the post and whether the appointment should be confirmed. In order to obviate misunderstanding I shall read the letter to the harbourmaster—

The port officer replied—

There was no doubt about the recommendation. That man was his immediate senior and also an English-speaking official. In February, 1943, after he had been there two years the post was raised and he was selected by the harbour master as the man best-qualified for it. He was likewise regarded by the district inspector and the system manager as the best man, while the General Manager’s office and the Service Commission regarded him as the best man for the appointment after he had performed the work satisfactorily over a period of two years. He was given the post on three months’ trial and after three months the question was raised whether the appointment should be confirmed. The answer was in the affirmative without any qualification. The port officials with whom he had worked for more than two years were prepared after the three months had elapsed to recommend him for the appointment. After that six months elapsed and he heard nothing. One fine day a telegram arrived that he was to be transferred immediately to Aliwal North in the same grade but in an acting capacity. He went there. He did not know what had happened. After he had served there a little time in an acting capacity he was transferred to Bloemhof in a lower grade. Then the promotion was entirely dead and buried. But no one had ever said why he had not got the appointment at Walvis Bay, and no reason was given for his transfer. The section manager learned of no reason, no one could enlighten him. The man was simply bundled out and within a few days was transferred from Walvis Bay to Aliwal North and from there he was transferred to Bloemhof. Then he wrote to his immediate chief and enquired for the reason for his transfer to Bloemhof. He asked what he had done, or whether he had done something wrong, and how it was he was not confirmed in the appointment. Then the system manager at East London under whose jurisdiction he was said that he would find out what the position was. Subsequently the system manager wrote to him—

Then he followed up the matter again, and asked the same section manager whether he would not be good enough to say what the reason was for the confirmation of his grade not having been forthcoming. He asked whether there was a complaint against him, why he was punished, whether he had done anything wrong. Then the system manager wrote to him—

Did he have an Afrikaans name?

Extraordinary though it may seem, he had an English name. I do not want to mention his name. Is it conceivable? Does the Minister know about it? I am asking him. But the Minister says everything is in order in his Department, that no injustices are being done. I can mention numbers of cases, only time does not permit. But if we only take a few concrete cases the Minister says that we only produce one or two cases, that it is always possible that a mistake has been made, but that they are exceptional cases. We can mention many cases. Do you know what the position is of this man? He is still at Bloemhof and cannot get promotion. He has appealed through all the channels up to the Railway Board. He asked for permission to write to them personally to submit his case. The Railway Board wrote to him—

Where must the man go for redress? What can he do? Must he just stay there and stew in his own juice? To whom must he turn? The Minister thought that he did me a bad turn when he read out yesterday a letter from a senior official in connection with a question that I had put, and I am glad that the Minister read out the letter. The official says in that that he has not approached me in connection with the matter, and that he has not asked me to intervene on his behalf. That is absolutely correct. But just a few mintes before the Minister said that he also said that it would pay the railway officials to go to their heads instead of to run to the Nationalist Party. Here is a man who has gone to all his chiefs and he can obtain no satisfaction. To whom must he turn? It is true that that official of whom the Minister spoke did not approach me in connection with his case, but I know the service, and the reasonableness and honesty in the service, and on that ground I mentioned the matter off my own bat in this House. I feel that this is my duty. But apart from that official whose case was not referred to me, there are numbers and numbers of others. Take, for instance, this case which reflects the position in South-West Africa I have here a number of cases of graded officials in South-West Africa. One writes here that his staff association challenged anyone to point out anyone who had not a grievance. I do not want to hold a personal discussion here between the Minister and myself, but I want to refer these few complaints that one man gave me and that contained complaints of a few of his colleagues within a period of about two months. There are about twenty of them at one station. It all revolves round complaints under the disciplinary regulations. Here we have a number of them, all trivial and childish, and the reason for all the complaints is that officials are being appointed who have to assume a responsibility which they are not experienced enough to carry. It is our grievance that officials are being appointed who are not qualified for their work. We are just as concerned over the efficiency of the Railway Administration as the Minister. We do not take second place to him in our interest in having an efficient Railway Administration not alone from the point of view of the staff but because the. Railway Administration is the body that must achieve most in South Africa after the war in connection with our efforts to re-establish ourselves on an economical footing. If the Minister wants to do that he must have able senior officers. It does not help matters if the subordinates are willing and diligent. The senior officers must be competent. To send up so many complaints against a few people in a depôt and to fine them from £2 and £5 to £10 and £25 for childish and trivial offences engenders neither satisfaction nor cheerfulness nor enthusiasm for their work amongst these people. The Minister does not know about these matters, and the only opportunity we have to bring them to his notice is here. The Minister has also replied to us in connection with a matter that was mentioned by another member, namely the transport of the Greyhounds. In this connection the Minister stated that confession was good for the soul. He thought that by that he would laugh the matter off. I only want to direct attention to the fact that he said that he was not responsible for the certificate, for the transportation of the 37 racing dogs. But as a member of the Government he is jointly responsible for that certificate. He casts the responsibility aside; he is not responsible. This is bad enough, but the fact is there that the dogs were taken and placed in pairs on lorries in this period of petrol scarcity and tyre scarcity. They were transported in pairs from the docks to the station. And how were they transported after that? The Minister gave us the answer. They were conveyed in trucks equal in capacity to ten short trucks. Do you know how many cattle can be transported in ten short trucks?

Between 120 and 200 cattle; it depends on their size and whether they have been fattened or are ordinary stock. The 37 dogs were conveyed in ten short trucks and without any special tariff by express train from Durban to Johannesburg, at the usual parcel rates. There is no other tariff for the conveyance of dogs. Those ten trucks could have carried anything from 600 to 1,000 sheep. The Minister has to accept the responsibility for that. He cannot evade it. He may laugh about it and feel, very happy, and let it run off him as water from a duck’s back. But then I want to tell him that we shall have to meet him at another place. The Minister says that there are no complaints amongst his staff. They are absolutely happy and contented, and he sleeps well just like the Minister of Agriculture. Will the Minister be so good as to lay on the Table the documents that are in existence in regard to the discharge of the grade-representative of the station foreman in the Free State who was charged under the disciplinary regulations and reduced in rank from station foreman, Grade 1, to checker because he had done certain things. Will the Minister be agreeable to laying these documents on the Table? If it is all above board as far as the Administration is concerned, he should be willing to table them. My time is too limited to traverse the whole matter from beginning to end. If I give the Minister this exceptional case, will he be prepared to let me inspect the documents? If he wants to be enlightened on the merits of the case I shall be prepared to give him such information. The Minister must not stand up here on every occasion and say that no dissatisfaction exists. We want to assist to build up this service, and it is not necessary for him to turn us down as he did yesterday. We will not take that from him. We do not run away from the fight, we shall fight him inside this House and outside. So long as grievances come under our notice, deeply felt grievances and bitterness amongst the railway staff, so long will we regard it as our duty to direct attention to it, and he does not need to think that as far as I personally am concerned I am either soured or discontented because I have retired from the services. I retired voluntarily, and when I left I was receiving a much higher remuneration, as he knows, than what I am getting here. I have sacrificed much. I am not standing up here as one who has been disgruntled, but to discuss railway interests. I have never mentioned my case to him. I do not want to do it, and I do not think it is necessary to do it. I am absolutely happy and contented over the step that I took and no one knows better than he how much I sacrificed to do this. But you must not be personal and small if you are driven into a corner. The Minister was driven into a corner by the cases that I mentioned, and he has been driven into a corner by the cases that I have now mentioned. I am asking him whether he is willing to lay the documents on the Table in connection with men being kicked out of the General Manager’s staff office. I asked him whether the promtion of the superintendent at Bloemfontein was made on the recommendation of the General Manager. I have asked him to lay certain documents on the Table. He only needs to treat these matters on their merits. That is what we want to do. We do not want to introduce any personalities.

I do not want to go into things that have already been mentioned by today you have a recurrence of what we had last year and the year before, a repetition of what happened last year, merely with this difference that the complaints are increasing every year and the Minister is developing the habit more and more of whenever he is in difficulty as a result of our arguments and representations, of becoming bitter. I am not at all surprised. Last year in the debates that took place, as was, a matter of fact, the case during the past few years we lodged complaints with the Ministers. We pointed out that there was dissatisfaction amongst the staff in the railway service. Last year he denied that. This year this has again been the drift of the debates and flagrant cases have been mentioned. If the Minister will be prepared in connection with the cases that have been mentioned by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) to lay the relevant documents on the Table, everyone can go into them, and information will be available about the cases but otherwise the felling will exist that he is trying to keep things back from the public and from this House. I think it is a reasonable request that has come from this side. It it very regrettable in the case of this Minister, because from the beginning of his term of office we have treated him very courteously, and it is a pity that he should sink to the level that he sank to yesterday when he made an attack on the hon. member for Vredefort in regard to his service, his lengthy service in the railways. That is very regrettable, and it was a sign of bad taste, and it is the more to be deplored that the Minister is not now prepared to lay on the Table the documents in connection with the hon. member’s discharge and his reinstatement in the service.

It is a personal record.

The Minister still has to reply to this debate, but I seriously doubt if he will be prepared to lay the documents on the Table. I am not surprised at that. In this case, for instance, there was a commission of enquiry and that, commission of enquiry found in favour of the hon. member for Vredefort, who is now sitting here, and he ascribed the injustice to the Minister, and as a result of the injustice that was perpetrated the Minister had to reinstate the hon. member for Vredefort in the service. But that is not the greatest regret of the Minister’s. His biggest grievance is that the hon. member is now sitting here. Hence the attitude of the Minister. After the Minister had repeatedly declined to allow matters to be investigated and to place documents on the Table also in connection with this case, we are not surprised that he has refused a general investigation into conditions in the service. We can understand the position of the Minister. If we ourselves were in the position of the Minister we should also perhaps refuse. He simply dare not. I only want to tell the Minister that again a period will elapse between now and the following Session, and it will be his task to see that the position has improved to such a degree that at least on the following occasion when he rises to speak in this House he will not need to be bitter, but he will be in a position to show that the position has improved in the services. Now I want to direct the Minister’s attention to what sometimes transpires in the departments. I do not want to say that he is the only Minister who is guilty of this. When you make representations to departments conferences are often held and enquiries made, and in this manner matters are indefinitely shelved. That reminds me that one day a little lad asked his father what a conference was. His father replied that it was a meeting to discuss when the following meeting would be held. It appears to me that this is also happening in the Minister’s Department. I want to direct the attention of the Minister to the discussions that took place in this House in connection with the linking up of railway lines and the plea that was made here for the linking up of Koffiefontein and Modder River. That line has a long history. Representations were made here to the predecessor of the hon. Minister, and at that time we received the answer that the Government had appointed a railway extension commission. The present Minister stood up and denied this, until he obtained the proof from Hansard that that was the case. According to that declaration of the previous Minister the intention was to institute an enquiry in connection with the linking of railway lines that ran to a dead end at certain points, and to enquire whether it would not pay to link up those railways at the nearest points. It is a well-known fact that when you have two railway lines which run parallel to each other, for instance, the traffic is not only doubled but multiplied four or five times if you get an additional line, because the delays previously experienced are eliminated. And if you link dead-ends with existing lines though in this case they diverge from each other, but also if they run parallel, the traffic will not only be doubled but perhaps increased fourfold. The position is that at a certain juncture, before the commencement of the Minister’s term of office, it was so certain that this link was to have been constructed, that a prominent official stated on a platform in the constituency that the resolution had been finally made for the line to be built. But I leave it at that. Since the Minister is occupied with this matter we have repeatedly made representations to him. Last year when Parliament was in Session there was a revival in this respect that we greatly appreciated. It was an extraordinary revival, a conference was convened at Koffiefontein and at that conference all the interests concentrated there were represented in every respect. There we met the representatives of the Railway Administration and discussed the whole matter with them. The municipalities and the villages that were concerned were represented; the various farmers’ associations were represented; the farmers associations from the adjacent districts were represented. It was a large and representative gathering. The town hall was crowded. The conference lasted the whole day. Now I am glad to be able to say, and I do not think the Minister of Lands will be offended if I say so, he knows what the position is in connection with the matter. He has farming interests there, and he knows what the development is under the Kraaipoort scheme. I mean that on that day a telegram was read out, and I stated that the Minister knew what were the requirements there, and accordingly he had sent a telegram to give his support as a man who was interested in this railway connection. The Minister of Lands agrees; he did send a telegram, and I said: Here is a case of a Cabinet Minister who knows what the position is and he agrees that it is absolutely necessary that we should build this railway line with the greatest speed and efficiency. That was during the Session last year. Some of us went there during the Session. I think if the hon. the Minister Lands had the opportunity he would like to have been present. But as a fact he was not there. I have made enquiries, but ever since then, from last year until now I have not heard anything. I think that delay that occurred—such a long period passes after such an enquiry—must necessarily make for squashing the whole question; and I think when, as was the case at Koffiefontein, a representative gathering has discussed the position so thoroughly, we should by this time at least have seen some sequel or other to this revival of the question and we have not seen it. I personally have not heard any further word in connection with this. Now I should like the Minister to give his attention to this subject, and I should like to know what the report of those officials was in connection with this matter. But I do not think the hon. Minister should just allow this question to slip by, or that the day will come when he will do that. There is the necessity today for extensions in various parts of the Free State, and I think this is par excellence one of the places where we should build a short line of about 31 or 32 miles, bearing in mind the tremendous development in connection with the Kraaipoort scheme and since there will be further development after the war, when returned soldiers are settled on the Kraaipoort scheme. It is necessary that that little railway line should be constructed. I want to say again that I think that a serious effort should be made to prevent as far as this department is concerned, as soon as an enquiry is started and the people seem to be becoming somewhat reassured, that matters will be allowed to remain in abeyance. When people take the trouble to start an investigation and when you collect all this data, and when you send such a representation to a conference, I think the question should be speeded up somewhat, and we should like to know what is happening. So much as regards this question; then I really hope that the Minister, in the year that lies ahead, will have great success and that he in the forthcoming year will be in a different frame of mind and that the staff associations and the service will be so improved that he will not again get sore when he receives a rap on the knuckles over these things in this House.

I should like to express a few thoughts on the question of separation of Europeans and non-Europeans on the railways. I trust that the Minister will not mind us bringing these complaints to him. It is the only place where we can complain. I want to confine myself to a specific instance that occurred between Pretoria and Pietersburg. By chance I was travelling that night from Pietersburg to Pretoria. It was first-class compartment, and right through the night natives climbed into the first-class carriages, stood on the balcony and in the corridor, and the passengers could not get a wink of sleep. Owing to the natives not having room in their coaches, they climbed into the first class. At every siding and every station they rushed the train, and they packed the train full. I do not know whether this frequently happens, but it occurred on this night that I was on this train, and the ladies in the first-class coach could not move freely about the train that night. They were really crowded out by the natives. The conductor was helpless and hopeless. He pleaded; he cajoled. It was not his fault; but I only want to point out what the position is in the Transvaal in regard to natives streaming into the corridors and on to the balconies of the first-class coaches. I am certain that other members from the Transvaal will be able to confirm that this is really the truth.

Where was this?

Between Pretoria and Pietersburg. If a precedent is established that the natives can be allowed to stream into the train like this and to travel from one station to the other on balconies and in the corridors of the first-class coaches, where is it going to end? The one tells the other and it increases, and later it will be virtually impossible for the public to travel during the night; during the day it is somewhat better. I should like the Minister to direct his attention to this subject. Then to mention another case, I was travelling between Cape Town and Bitterfontein and the evening that the train had to depart I found two women very upset—bitterly discontented; their reservation had been made for them in the second class, and when they got there they found a couple of coloured nuns in the second class. They were respectably dressed but they were coloured. Reservations had been made for them in the second class with Europeans. I take it that they did not reserve the places themselves, but that the priest did so. He reserved accommodation for them in the second class with European women. There was a great commotion. I went to speak to the conductor. He shrugged his shoulders; he was actually afraid to trouble himself over the matter. Eventually it was arranged, and the conductor had to take the luggage of these two coloured women and find room for them in a special coach at the rear of the train. I am only referring to these points. If we do not complain about this it creates a precedent. The one tells the other, and later things are made intolerable on the railways. We believe in separation and hon. members opposite also believe in it. What we are offended at is that hon. members opposite know of such instances, but they do not voice their objections in this House. We ought to work together in this connection, because they are just as dissatisfied as we are. The whole of the European community are discontented. They believe in separation, and we must maintain that principle of separation, otherwise I do not know what it will lead to. Today I received a letter from Vredendal, where in the last few days there was registered at the station a temperature of no less than 112 degrees. It was 112 degrees in that galvanised iron station building at Vredendal. The Minister has a big staff there and they have to work in that heat. They are overburdened with work. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to be good enough to give attention to the state of affairs at Vredendal in that galvanised iron building. It is very unfair and unjust that officials should be treated in that way. Two years ago the Minister wrote to me and promised that he would intervene immediately, and change the conditions there. It is just as it was before. Then I want to bring another matter to the notice of the Minister, and that is in relation to refrigeration trucks. There are comparatively few refrigerator trucks in our country, and little possibility of constructing refrigeration trucks. The North-West is considering very seriously providing their own slaughter pens. It is difficult to send slaughter cattle down here. The animals are famished; they suffer from thirst; they remain in the trucks for quite a few days before they arrive here, and when they reach Maitland or some other place they have to starve for a few more days. The Cape has not had decent meat because the stock arrives here in a condition in which they are not really fit for slaughter, and within a few years we should certainly commence this undertaking, and I want to ask the Minister whether he will not devote his attention at an early date to the building of refrigeration trucks. Then I want to agree with the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper)—there is a great deal of truth in what he said. Although the Minister tried in his reply yesterday to dispose of the matter in an ironic manner, that was not right. If a matter is dealt with on its merits the Minister ought to give the greatest attention to it, and to evince interest in it. We all agree that he is not himself guilty in this respect; but the fault that the Minister is making today is that he is trying to shield his officials. We feel very strongly on this point, and especially when we go to those offices and amongst the officials we see brigadiers, majors, captains, all with military titles. The Minister appoints mainly military people. They would be very good in the field. Unfortunately they never get there. Unfortunately, too, they are no use in the offices. We have to deal with generals and other officers in the railways. They have not seen service, and they will never see it. Why then all these military titles?

But you also have one.

But I have been in the field, and I have a record of military service. I want to mention one case that the hon. member did not touch on, and that is the case of one of the senior officials in the head office in Johannesburg. I may not mention his name, I may not say where he is exactly, I am afraid that his position would thereby be made much worse. This man is entitled to promotion. What was done. He was sent as a station master far away from the head office. Later he was sent to an even more remote place. This sort of practice is to be strongly disapproved, and this is the complaint that we hear. I say that the Minister cannot argue it away that there 1s a screw loose, and it is something very serious, in connection with the system of promotion, and it also touches him personally. It establishes a certain precedent for the future. I am thinking, for instance, should the Labour Party come into power what would happen? Those high officials will all have to be people who belong to trade unions, otherwise they would not receive their appointments and who would then howl the loudest? That side of the House. Then that Party would say: You did it, why can’t we do it. I say that if it should happen that this side comes into power you should not be touchy, but this is a dangerous precedent. We do not want to belittle ourselves by making promotions on such Party lines. The public service should stand above the Party. We do not want to make political agents of the government officials. We only want service from them on efficient and nonparty lines.

What about the Broederbond?

You can talk about the Broderbond and the Freemasons and the Sons of England and the Jewish Board of Deputies, but we cannot meddle with those sort of things. Here we have to deal with a service. An official who renders good service ought to receive his just promotion. One further matter. I want to mention a few ideas in connection with our air service. I heard the Minister say yesterday in his announcement that he had seven machines, and that those seven machines were performing miracles. He is transporting more passengers with those seven machines than what he transported before the war; that is good news; we welcome it. But what I want to know from the Minister is whether those machines are still really in a good condition, or whether those machines are not a danger? They are now running well. The Minister should not, however, wait until an accident occurs before he has these machines replaced by new machines. I want to know from the Minister whether he has already made a decision and what his plans are for the future; whether he will obtain new and improved machines for South Africa, and if he has not done this if he will tell us whether this is not urgently necessary, that without delay new and improved machines should be obtained for our air service. I am certain that the machines that he now has in service have a record of an infinite number of hours of service, and no matter how they are repaired and rectified, old machines are a constant danger. I foresee that the Minister will keep these old machines in service until there is an accident. I can tell the Minister that I would not risk my life on those machines. So long as the Minister avails himself of those old machines I am not going to risk my life in them. Then there is still another matter. With that I shall sit down. Now just one or two ideas about the national road undertaking. If there is one matter on which the Minister is to be congratulated and for which we have to thank him, it is in connection with our national road undertaking.

I have to remind the hon. member that there is a separate vote for transport. What the hon. member desires to discuss falls under a different vote; it may not be discussed at this stage.

Then I will leave it at that.

It is generally assumed that the Minister will not construct any new railway lines in the post-war period, but that his idea is to supply the services wanted by means of motor transport. I do not want to go into the desirability of such a change. To a question of mine yesterday the Minister, however, replied that he does not intend to construct roads for those bus services he will be establishing. He said that he had no power to do that. This, to my mind, is a very serious matter. The Minister promised to provide the bus services, but he is not going to provide the roads because, as he states, it does not fall within his province. I should like to hear from the Minister what the use of his services will be if the necessary roads are not constructed. The Minister will yet experience lots of trouble with the various provinces and especially with the Free State. The Free State is a poor province which has to repair the roads from the people’s savings which it collects in taxes. The Minister of Finance stressed the fact yesterday, that the Free State is a poor Province which has no sources of income and no sources of taxation. How then will the Free State be able to construct the necessary roads for those bus services which the Minister is going to introduce and which will have to transport the farmers’ produce and other goods. I must say that this confuses us altogether. We thought that if the Minister will not construct railway lines he will at least construct roads over which his lorries will travel. The Minister merely shrugs his shoulders. There is, however, quite a simple solution for this problem. The Minister need merely increase the subsidy which he grants to the various Provincial Councils and from the money so obtained the roads may be built. My proposal is not that all the roads on which these buses will travel should be constructed. There could at least be certain main roads along which these buses will travel, but if that is not done, the policy of the Minister will end in a dismal failure for it is generally known that his buses will ruin the existing roads in a very short time. I am speaking mainly of the Free State. There are no funds to keep those roads in good condition, and it will alarm the whole of the Free State to hear that we will be put in such a perilous position. I am now speaking principally of the constituency which I represent. The north-western part of the Free State has been neglected very much in years gone by, most probably because it did not produce much. During the last few years, however, the north-western part of the Free State has developed by leaps and bounds, and developed to such an extent that it has in fact become the maize granary of the Free State. Last year the area of Koopstad very likely produced the largest crop of maize in the Union. I notice that the Minister nods his head. We are pleased to receive that confirmation and I predict that also during this year the constituency of Koopstad is going to produce the largest crop of maize in the Union and we know that we are facing a severe maize shortage. Not only did that part of the country develop to such an extent that it became the largest maize producing part of the country, but here we also find the future gold fields of the Free State. These parts have developed to such an extent, that there is now a very strong agitation to have three railway lines constructed in the district of Koopstad. I want to thank the Minister on this occasion for the courtesy with which he received the deputation from Hoopstad which came to plead for a certain railway line. I also received a letter from the chairman accompanying that deputation in which I am asked to thank the Minister most cordially for his courtesy of sending the Railway Board to that constituency. I personally and all of us appreciate that very much. This creates a spirit of goodwill between us and the Minister and I only hope that the Minister will go so far as to visit my constituency in order to convince himself that this need is not imaginary, but is an actual one. I again want to bring to the notice of the Minister that that deputation asked for a railway line from Makwassie via Hoopstad, Hertzogville, Boshof and linking up at Kimberley. That section, as they were able to convince the Minister, justifies a railway line because the production has increased so much that the produce can no longer be coped with by means of lorry transport. I just want to point out that the Minister was so impressed by the necessity for this to be done that he promised to send the Railway Board there to investigate. If the Minister would consent to the construction of that line, we would erect him a monument in Hoopstad which would stand there for all times. There is another matter which I want to raise at the request of my electors. We have a railway line which terminates at. Bultfontein. We should like to see that line extended, so that it may link up with another railway line. Several reasons could be advanced in favour of this request, but one of the reasons is that as soon as that extension was completed, there would be a third main line from the Witwatersrand down. We know that the one now runs through Kimberley to Cape Town and the other now goes through Bloemfontein. The Minister complains that those lines are being overworked but if this line were extended from Klerksdorp, Bothaville and Bultfontein, there would be a third main line through the Free State which would lighten the traffic on the other lines. This is essential. This will not only ease the position in regard to traffic, but there are hundreds of square miles of valuable maize land which will be put under cultivation once the railway line is there. I want to ask the Minister to reconsider his decision. Last year a strong deputation met at Klerksdorp. I was one of the delegates, and there a decision was generally approved of to ask the Minister of Transport to construct a railway line from Klerksdorp to Theunissen, which would turn off at Schuttesdraai and then go to Odendaalsrust, and would then cross the gold fields connecting up with the main line at Theunissen. We are dealing now with the gold mining industry. Sooner or later that line will have to come and on this point there is unanimity. I would therefore appreciate it if the Minister would be so good as to send the Railway Board there as soon as possible in order to investigate those two lines and to build them, if possible. As I said before, this part of the country is developing at a rapid rate, and an urgent need exists for those lines. We would be most grateful to the Minister if he could arrangé the construction of those three lines in the near future.

I shall not detain the House for long, but there are a few matters that I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) brought these matters up, and I think it is my duty to ask the Minister to give an exhaustive answer to those points. It does not help the Minister to stand up here and be jocular. It is not often one finds a Scotsman who is jocular, and consequently the Minister is, of course, highly pleased about his being jocular. This is not a matter for joking. It is the Opposition’s duty to communicate to the Minister the dissatisfaction and difficulties that exist. I know well enough that the Minister has to contend with many difficulties, and that he cannot satisfy everyone. But it does not assist matters to stand here and in a frivolous way attempt to brush important matters aside. It places neither him nor the Administration in a better position, while the people who have complained, or about whom there are complaints, feel that the country should hear what treatment they are experiencing. As far as I personally am concerned, I have received various letters from people who have been retired. Last year we had the case of a young lad from Riversdale. He is a son of a railway official, and his father was very glad when, after taking his matric he entered the service of the railways. When he was a lad of 19 or 20 he was sent to South-West Africa. He must have said something out of his turn, and he was pulled up with the result that he was thrown out of the service. It was a ridiculous thing he said, one of those things we say every day. He was summoned, fined £1, thrown out of the service, and with that his whole future in that connection was wrecked. Those people do not feel happy about that sort of thing. It is ridiculous to bring these people into difficulties about these trivial things that they say; I want to tell the Minister that there is amongst the railway officials a feeling of unrest. They do not know from one day to another what is going to happen to them. If there is a highly placed official who wants to kick these people out of the service he will make some plan or other to do so. That is the feeling amongst the railway officials. It does not help for the Minister to be frivolous about this. That feeling is there, and it is our duty, as an Opposition, to tell the country what the position is. I do not expect that the senior officials will tell the Minister about these things. The Minister should realise that there is no excuse for him. He is responsible for what his officials do, however wrong their actions may be. The Minister stands at the helm, and he must suffer for what is done. He cannot offer the excuse that it is some official or other who has done it. As a business man he will know, as well as I do, that the head is responsible for the people who fall under him. Nor can the Minister make the excuse that he did not know about these things. I have sat here and listened with interest to the answer that the Minister gave because I respect him in the position which he holds. I regard him as an able man if he wants to do things. I will give him the advice not to attempt to put a good face on things simply because it is his officials who have done these things. If he does this he is going to suffer by it, and the Administration is going to suffer by it, and he will not obtain from these people the services that he ought to have.

And the country is suffering under that.

Yes, of course. Take the case of the man who was fined £25. I do not know what that man said. Presumably he gets a salary of £25, and he was apparently fined more than half of his salary. This is a serious matter. He asked to be allowed to pay his fine in instalments. Uusually that is allowed, but in his case it was refused. That indicates what hatred and spleen there was against him for what he had said. Then we find in addition that the Minister has used here what is really a threat, what he has, of course, meant as a threat against the officials outside. He has stated that it would pay them better to present their complaints through their association than to place members on this side of the House in possession of the knowledge of their grievances. What is going on in the railways? Has the Minister a sort of gestapo in the Administration? I can assure him that in many cases an injustice has happened. Those people have been dismissed. They have no voice, and they have no other course open than to come to us. For the Minister to stand up here and to try to justify the Administration and to excite laughter will not do the Administration any good. Take the case of the man who was mentioned by the hon. member for Vredefort. He was a first-class stationmaster; nevertheless and in face of all the recommendations of all his superior officers, he was reduced in grade. That man was brought from South-West Africa to Aliwal North, and then he was sent to the Free State. He was reduced in rank, and the man wanted to know what he had done that was wrong. Why cannot they tell the man what he did? If he did something wrong why cannot he be given an opportunity to answer the charge? Without knowing what wrong he has done he is reduced in rank, and his pension and his whole future is affected. The Minister must remember that it is not only that man who is embittered; it is not only his household who are embittered, but his whole family. He comes into contact with other officials. There are those who recommend that he should retain his post, and all these people feel aggrieved over the treatment of the Administration. What loyalty can the Minister expect from these people in the circumstances? Can the Minister expect that contentment will prevail amongst them? They simply feel that if they are not creepers they will not make any headway. If there is no influence behind them they will get no promotion. They simply laugh when we tell them that promotion is only granted on merit. They simply say that it is hot faithful service that counts, nor is it seniority, but the political influence that a person has behind him. It is just the attitude of the people that are his superiors, and not his merits that tell. I expect that the Minister will explain to us here what has happened, so that we can satisfy these people outside. The Minister should not attempt to reply here in a facetious manner. Let him give us the facts and say what is wrong. Let him give us the reasons why people are placed in that position. I can give him the assurance that there is dissatisfaction, and that the people feel that an injustice has been done them. If he adopts the attitude that he has adopted here, he is not going to lessen that sense of grievance, but he is going to make it worse. Now I should like to talk to the Minister on a matter that affects my constituency. A bus service runs from Montagu via Barrydale to the Baths. After many years the people at Barrydale and in the Karoo have, praise God, obtained a good wheat harvest. The people want to transport that wheat to the market. The nearest market is Swellendam, which is about 24 miles distant from Barry dale. The bus route, however, runs from Barrydale to Montagu and if the wheat is to be transported over that bus route it must be conveyed from Barrydale to Montagu, then to Ashton, be loaded on the train there, and then carried back 40 miles to Swellendam. I approached the Administration to set aside some of the buses to convey the wheat direct the 34 miles from Barrydale to Swellendam. They said they could not do that because they had to keep to the route. They had enough coaches to make a deviation from the route because they had gone miles off the route to carry manure, and the tariff for manure is lower than for wheat. Then they said that if they sent the motor buses to Swellendam they would have to return empty. Well, in any case if the people hired motor lorries to transport the wheat to Swellendam these too would have had to be returned empty. But they had no right to say this, because they did not know what transport there would be from Swellendam to Barrydale. The result was that the people had to transport that wheat 70 miles to Ashton, and then back 40 miles to Swellendam, while they could have gone the 34 miles over the road to Swellendam. In addition to that we know that Barrydale is situated at the top of the pass, and that for a big distance it is downhill towards Swellendam. However that may be, they told these people that they would have to convey the wheat by that circuitous route to Swellendam or otherwise they would have to hire lorries. The people are poor, but one of them wanted to transport his wheat direct from Barrydale to Swellendam. The road runs about a mile past Buffelsjacht River, which is about five or six miles from Swellendam. For that reason the Road Transportation Board would not grant a permit for transportation from Barrydale to Swellendam, but only from Barrydale to the Buffeljags River. This would have meant that the person would have had to load the wheat at Barrydale, offload it on to the train at Buffeljags River, and then again at Swellendam he would have had to come and load it to convey it to the store. What is more, motor lorries are not available for hire in Barrydale; they have to be hired in Swellendam. They said that the permit could not be granted. Yet this is done in other districts. I know that the lorries in Robertson drive past three stations from Ashton to Robertson. They also get permits to ride down from Vink River, but it is in Barrydale, where the people are poor, where this year they have got a crop but not for the last ten years, that they have been obliged to have their goods carried 70 miles. They had to lose that money. They could not get leave from the Road Transportation Board to send motor lorries direct to Swellendam. They had to part with so much of the profit from their harvest. The Minister ought to talk to the Transportation Board. They should not be so unreasonable as to expect from the farmers that they should waste money in this way. The Minister cannot tell me that it is sound business. I feel that a change should be effected. Here we find that the people are obliged to go to Swellendam from Barrydale via Ashton. Nor can they get permits to go past Buffeljags River. They had to off-load the stuff there. I have received a letter in which it is stated that there is a storekeeper at Buffeljags, and they think that it is that storekeeper who wanted that the goods should be off-loaded there. The position is that an injustice has been done to these people, and it should be remedied. Then I want to come to another matter. At Garcia Pass on the other side of Langeberg there is a bus service which stops at a certain farm. It arrives there once a week. Is there no opportunity for these people along the Langeberg to get a bus service or a train service so that their produce may be conveyed to Barrydale or Ladismith? If they send goods to Worcester it can be transported direct to Ladismith via Touws River. Now they have to send their goods along the mountain or through Garcia Pass, and then to Riversdale, and then it goes back to Worcester. Can nothing be done to accommodate these people? I want again to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to take up seriously the points that we bring up here as an Opposition. It is not fitting that he should employ threats to say that the people in the service should not approach us. These people cannot get their rights, and they have no other course open to them but to come to us. I know the railways, and I know what is going on; we know that everyone does not get his due in the railway. They do not get a square deal. I know this and the Minister knows it also. It does not help for him to try and justify everything here. He owes it to this House to furnish full information so that we may know what the position is, and we can convey it to the persons concerned. It may be that there are well-founded reasons, but if there are no reasons then we must look at the position frankly. The Minister does not gain anything by trying to be funny. We shall not remain silent if he persists in that attitude. At present we are working very nicely with him, but the Minister must not continue in that manner. We do not want him simply to adopt the standpoint that he has to justify everything that is done in his office and by the Railway Board. We want good relations to subsist between all the people, and we want the people in the Railway service to be happy. We all have our difficulties. The Minister also has his difficulties, and there are of course many difficulties that are not well founded. If difficulties have no foundation then we are prepared to support him, but when we bring up serious matters we expect the Minister to give a complete answer to them.

During this debate, Mr. Speaker, a considerable number of questions have been asked which were answered by me in the previous debate, and I do not propose to go over the same ground again. Several of the questions that have been asked will require a little investigation. Hon. members will realise that the Minister has not ready at hand here the files on all sorts of cases that have been mentioned during the debate, and that it is quite impossible for me to reply to questions regarding them at such very short notice. There are one or two matters of importance that I shall deal with. I wish to deal with two points brought up by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood). In the case of Venter a bonus of 10 per cent. in his favour has been authorised with retrospective effect from September, 1942. With regard to the case of S. J. Pretorius which the hon. member is continually hammering on, I do not like to bring such cases before the House, but as the hon. member insists on an explanation I should like to say Pretorius was associated with Robey Leibbrandt. There is evidence that Pretorius and his brother were concerned in the subversive schemes of Robey Leibbrandt. The police searched the residence of the Pretorius family on the 28th January, 1942, but the brothers had absconded and were afterwards arrested at Kuruman. Thereafter they were joined with Robey Leibbrandt and 16 others in a preparatory examination on a charge of high treason, but were discharged and then interned. The Appeals Advisory Commissioner reported in regard to the internment of the Pretorius brothers as follows—

As Pretorius had failed to report for duty and was a fugitive from justice, he was regarded with effect from 28th January, 1942, as having absconded from the service. Having regard to the circumstances of the case it is considered that Pretorius is not a suitable person for re-employment by the Administration. I should like to deal with the question that was raised by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) who, I notice, is not in his place, in connection with the question of coloured passengers on the railways. When I spoke on the previous occasion I indicated that the railway position was not very strong, and I should now like to make the position a little clearer to the hon. member. The section that the hon. member read out, Section 4, must be read in conjunction with Section 36 of the same Act (No. 22 of 1916) which lays down that we can only punish a person if he, amongst other things—

The point is that he must have done that knowingly. If he walks into an ordinary compartment bearing no special indication he can reply, if charged: “I did not know it was not for non-Europeans.”

What an excuse!

It is not an excuse. It is a legal opinion. [Interruptions.] I trust that hon. members will give me the opportunity to proceed, otherwise I shall not be able to finish. This is a lawyer’s opinion that was submitted to me. Since the matter was previously submitted the position has deteriorated. In September last four Cape coloured passengers were found travelling in a second-class compartment in the train from Saldanha Bay to Cape Town, in a coach for the use of Europeans. They were requested by the ticket examiner to move to a coach that had been provided for the exclusive use of non-Europeans. They refused to move. The case was eventually submitted to the Senior Public Prosecutor at Cape Town who, however, advised that the Attorney-General—mark the Attorney-General, not me—did not favour a prosecution under Section 36 (b) read in conjunction with the railway regulation.

You did not make use of your power. You did not take steps.

Do not argue with me. I know your difficulty. I am quite prepared to try to meet it. I am only telling you my difficulty. Instead of that you attack me.

You said you had no power.

I have no power. Since the Attorney-General will not prosecute how can I have power? The only way in which this matter can be met is by an amendment of the Act. I shall have a further legal investigation into the matter and see whether you are right or wrong.

Just ask your legal advisers what steps you must take to give effect to your Acts.

What about the decision in the Appellate Division in Herman vs. Rex which the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) quoted?

The hon. member does not see the difference between this case and the case he now quotes. Even I, though no lawyer, see that difference. The case quoted was one where there was a notice that the space was reserved for Europeans only.

Why do you not put up notices everywhere?

Must every compartment and bench on the railways all over the country have a notice?

Yes, why not.

Then I would rather amend the Act. Now you will understand my difficulty.

No. You are worse than a Scotchman.

As the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) is not here, I need not reply to him. I feel I must reply to the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper). I would like to make it perfectly clear that as far as he is concerned he was charged with being involved, as he said himself, in a case under the Proclamation about the O.B. The Enquiry Board found him guilty and on that the General Manager decided to dismiss him from the service. The Appeal Board upheld his appeal and after that, since they differed from the General Manager, the case came to the Railway Board, who altered the punishment to one of a recorded reprimand. That is the position as far as he is concerned. After that recorded reprimand he came out without a stain on his character, and in fact he was promoted in the railway service subsequently. I want to make that clear, in fairness to the hon. member, but I have no intention whatever of laying disciplinary charge papers on the Table of the House. You can put me out of office and get another Minister, but I will never do it. But here is a rather illuminating case. We heard a great deal today and yesterday about a certain officer who could not be promoted, a Special Class I stationmaster. Now, that particular officer—I am not going to mention his name—was specially reported on by two officers, two officials in whom everybody will have confidence. They are Mr. Heckroodt and Mr. Bosman. What do they say about this Mr. X, as I shall call him? This is written by Mr. Heckroodt. He says—

That is what Mr. Heckroodt and Mr. Bosman say about an employee who has not been promoted, and it is characteristic of nearly all these cases. Incidentally, I do not know whether this man is English-speaking or not, but he has an English name.

What did you say his name was?

Mr. X. I have no intention of bandying names across the floor of the House. Various other points were brought up mostly in the direction of new railways being built and that sort of thing. I have no intention to commit myself at this hour to any new railway lines, and most of the other questions raised are such that I think I can reply to them more fully and better in writing. I had one or two points to mention in connection with what the hon. member for Beaufort West said, but as he is not here. I need not raise the points. I would like to say this, that I do appreciate the action of members on that side of the House as well as on this in not mentioning the names of officers on the occasion of the debate this year. Many cases were brought up but no names mentioned. I would like to tell my friends, particularly those on this side of the House, that it is a very bad thing if, when a foreman reprimands a workman or an inspector the foreman, the moment that is done there is going to be a debate in the House. If that is done, the discipline in the railways would quickly go. That is why I am anxious not to mention the names of officials and particular episodes. If any injustice is done hon. members know quite well that they only have to put the facts before me and I shall investigate, even in cases where injustice is merely alleged. There are one or two other questions that I thought I might answer today, but they are questions which affect members who are not present, and therefore I will now conclude my remarks and move that we now take the third reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.