I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I second.

Would the Minister consent to give the House a longer period for the consideration of this Bill, which is a very important one introducing innovations of a far-reaching character?

I believe it is the intention of the Minister to send this Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

I second.

Do I understand that this Bill will also go to a Select Committee before the second reading?

I understand that is the intention of the Minister of Finance.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple and more or less formal measure, to bring the employees of the Road Transportation Boards under the usual conditions of the Public Service Act. As the House may remember, the Road Transportation Boards were originally established as a branch of the Department of Railways and Harbours, and until the constitution of the Ministry of Transport, they were financed by the Railways and Harbours. Because of the fact, however, that they were no part of Railways and Harbours, and indeed, because of the fact that the Railways and Harbours themselves had to go to the Road Transportation Board for authority to obtain certificates, and for authority to conduct traffic on the roads, etc., it was considered unwise to bring the Road Transportation Boards directly under the control of the General Manager of Railways, the result being that the boards have always been left rather in the air in respect of the futures of their employees. No pensions were provided and no provisions made for them at all. However, as the Department of Transport has now been constituted, under the Ministry of Transport, and as the boards have been brought in under this new department, there is no reason at all why the rights and privileges of civil servants shall not be extended to employees of the boards, and this Bill aims at achieving that end. This Bill provides, therefore, for the absorption and classification within the public service of the staffs of the Road Transportation Boards, their admission to membership of the statutory pension fund and the application to them of the benefits and privileges granted to members of the public service. One great advantage, as this House will appreciate, is this, that in the past there has been not very much hope for advancement on the part of any employee of the boards; once they have reached the height of being secretary of the local board, they reach the ultimate position that they could hope to reach on that board. Under this new scheme they can be transferred to other Departments, and consequently I think the Road Transportation Boards are almost certain to benefit by having a wider choice of employees who could undertake this very important work. This Bill of course, takes over the existing staff, and I would like to make it quite clear that under the provisions of this Bill, no employee may draw less than he is drawing now. Whatever the public service rates of payment may ultimately be, it will not affect the salaries of these people in a downward direction. There are, of course, several precedents for this Act. The State Advances Recoveries Act provides for the admission to the public service of staff dealing with Farmers’ Relief Acts. The Native Trust and Land Act also made similar provision for the employees. The South African Mint Act provided for persons employed at the Pretoria branch of the Royal Mint to become employees of the Union Government, and the same was done in connection with the employees of the Transkeian Territories General Council. If I might briefly refer to the clauses: Clause 1 contains definitions, and is the usual clause in a Bill. Clause 2 provides that all present employees, including temporary employees, of the Road Transportation Boards, are to be employees of the Government on the date the Bill becomes law. Provision is made for the creation, grading and classification of all posts on the establishment of the boards, of which there are 16 and for the appointment of employees to posts in the public service; upon such appointment they will, in terms of the Government Service Pensions Act, be required to contribute to the Union Public Service Pension Fund. At present these employees have no pension fund at all. The education and age qualifications prescribed for admission to the public service cannot, however, be applied, as here we are dealing not with future employees, but with existing employees. Upon admission to a post in the public service no employee shall suffer a reduction of emoluments or of scale of salary, or of rate of progression from that applicable to him as an employee of the board immediately prior to the commencement of this Act, although the pensionable emoluments may be less. I want specially to deal with Clause 3. Clause 3 provides that employees appointed to the public service who, in order to enter the Road Transportation Boards Service, resigned from employment under the Government, shall have the right, and those who resigned from the railways shall be permitted, to have their previous service counted for pensionable purposes. I may say that a day or two ago, when I studied this Bill, this clause gave me some difficulty, and in consequence of that I had the matter looked into, and I find that there is no reason at all why railway employees should not be treated on all fours with public servants in this matter. I therefore propose, with the permission of the House, to leave it standing in the meantime for purposes of the second reading, but I will put an amendment on the Order Paper, to be dealt with in the Committee Stage, which will treat anyone who resigned from the public service and anyone who resigned from the railways on exactly the same footing. There is no reason at all why there should be any differentiation between these two sets of employees. So I shall be glad if the House will notice that sub-section 2 of Clause 3 will be amended by the amendment which I shall put on the Order Paper. Clause 4 provides that the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, will determine the pensionable emoluments of employees appointed in the public service. Clause 5 provides that while absent on military service employees may be appointed to the public service without notification, and if this is done, they will have to contribute in respect of continuous service prior to such appointments. They must elect, after their discharge from military service, to remain in the public service, or to revert to the status of employees of the Government. If they elect to remain in the public service they are also required to elect whether or not their service in the Road Transportation Boards, until their employment in the public service, shall be pensionable. It will be appreciated, of course, that any employee, whether he be a public servant or an ex-railway servant, in the nature of things, must make good his past contributions received when he retired from such service. If they do so, then under Clause 3, they will have the right to elect to count previous employment under the Government as pensionable service. But this last provision is to be extended to ex-railway servants on an equal footing under my proposed amendment. Clause 6 provides that Section 5 of the Motor Carrier Transportation Act, 1930, is amended by the deletion of paragraph (g) of sub-section (1), conferring upon the Central Transportation Board the functions of appointing personnel, as appointments will now be made in the ordinary way by the Public Service Commission. I think, except for the short title, there is nothing further in the Bill, and I do not think I can add anything to my statement.

I think this Bill is one which will receive general approval. It is high time that the conditions under which all who serve on boards like these should be brought into conformity with the privileges they would have received if they were civil servants. Amongst many of those people there was a feeling that conditions of service on the boards were worse for the officials than in other branches of the services, and the result was that a weaker type of person was attracted—that was the impression of many people—than to other branches of the service, persons who could not obtain other suitable work, or were unsuitable for the service for other reasons. There was also the defect that much of the work of the various boards, like these, is of a specialised nature and one needs people who have been trained for a long time and who make a career of it. But one cannot get people to make a career of it because the conditions of service were so much worse than the conditions in other portions of the service. With this change the position will be improved and one will perhaps draw the right class of persons who will devote themselves specially to this work and make a career of it. There is only one point I should like to ask the Minister about. The personnel of the Road Motor Transportation Board in future will be entitled to a pension and to certain privileges enjoyed by civil servants. What is the position of a man who has for example been in the service of the Road Motor Transportation Board for ten years, ten years before the Act comes into operation? Will he be credited with those ten years for pension purposes? If that is not done, I do not think that those people would be receiving fair treatment and they will have the right to feel aggrieved, because then the position is that when they reach the age limit, and retire, they will have many years less service for pension purposes than people in other branches of the service, or than those will have who entered the service ten years later. I should be glad if the Minister could give us the assurance that the ten years will be taken into account or else that he will consider whether it is not possible to do so. For the rest I do not think that there will be opposition to the Bill. It is necessary and I think that the House will welcome the measure.

We should like to express our satisfaction because the Minister has taken the step of putting these men on the permanent list. They were always in a very uncertain postion. They could be given notice at any moment and they had no pension rights in respect of the services they had performed. Therefore we are glad that the Minister took this step. A point which occurred to me is the one made by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), namely that many of these young men have already been in the service of the Road Transportation Board for a number of years. They had university training but during all those years they never had the opportunity of contributing towards the pension fund. It is not clear to us that this Bill provides for them as regards past years of service, and I should like to hear from the Minister what the position is regarding the period they have already served. I think that this Bill will be welcomed by the personnel of the Transportation Boards, and I welcome this step of the Minister’s.

It is good that the future of these people is being guaranteed and that they are given the safety and other privileges which officials of the civil service have. But I should like to know whether this group of people are satisfied to be incorporated in the civil service, with its privileges, as the position in the public service is today. If we study Clause 2 of the Bill we find quite a few peculiar provisions in it. I refer to subclause (2) of Clause 2. There we find that the Public Service Commission are immediately given a stick which it can use against these people and against their interests. For example, we find the following provision in this sub-clause—

It seems to me that this provision was consciously inserted. It can only have meaning if there are people in the service of the Road Transportation Board in receipt of a higher salary than they would receive in a similar post in the civil service, and therefore a choice is put to them. What else can it mean? That person will be faced with the position that he will have to tell the Public Service Commission that he is satisfied to accept a reduced salary in order to be able to remain with the service. That is the only meaning one can attach to it. There is no other meaning. That man will rather work for a reduced salary than to have his services terminated. He is faced with the choice of either leaving the service or working for a reduced salary.

In addition he receives certain other privileges, together with his salary.

Then why this provision? The point is that the man is faced with this choice. It reads that it cannot be done without his consent. No provision at all couched in these words will be necessary if the new privileges of this person in the civil service are better than the privileges which he has now. He will not decide against his own interest. Then there is another matter. These people have probably been in the service of the Transportation Board for a fairly long period. The actions of the Road Transportation Board were always subject to this Parliament. The Minister kept an eye on it and Parliament kept an eye on it. The Road Transportation Board tried to treat its people in such a way that they could gradually be promoted in the service, in order to retain their services. But when that personnel falls under the authority of the Public Service Commission, I fear that there will be times when they will pray to be able to get out of the service. At the moment we already have many resignations from the public service. That is due to the fact that those people are simply left subject to the will and discretion of the Public Service Commission, and the actions of that Public Service Commission are not directly subject to supervision by a Select Committee of this House which can annually keep an eye on it, which can analyse the actions of the Public Service Commission and decide whether things are done as they should be. Where these people hitherto have had reasonable treatment, where they were well treated and had a reasonable opportunity to be promoted, they know that they will not have that opportunity when they fall under the Public Service Commission. I do not know whether I am allowed to make this point, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to bring this aspect of the matter to the attention of the House. I think that not only in the interests of all the people falling under the Public Service Commission but in the interests of the country and of this House, an annual report of the Public Service Commission should be submitted to a special Select Committee, which can then report to this House to indicate how employees were treated by the Public Service Commission with regard to promotion and other matters. You know, it sounds peculiar that a man in the public service who five years ago said that there were only five people ahead of him before he got promotion should discover after five more years that there are twenty above him. When we discover that, and when that is the case, nobody will be very keen on being left to the discretion of the Public Service Commission as regards promotion. The point I wish to make is that it will be to the advantage of this House, of the public and of the officials who resort under the Public Service Commission that a Select Committee should be appointed by this House every year which can investigate these matters and satisfy us all as to whether the promotions granted by the Public Service Commission were made honestly and justly, or not. I am convinced that it did not always happen in that manner, and therefore I feel concerned about these pêople, whatever their number might be, who are’ now, under the present circumstances, placed under the Public Service Commission. We know how things go here year after year. When we draw the attention of the relevant Minister to these matters, he simply says that it is not his duty, that he hals nothing to do with it and that the Public Service Commission deals with the matter. We find now that another group of people will fall under the Public Service Commission, and I feel that the country cannot be satisfied, that the House cannot be satisfied, and that the Government also cannot be satisfied that those people should always be treated on their merits. In the circumstances I am not prepared to say that I want to chase another group of people into that unfortunate kraal. That is my objection, because I am dissatisfied with the way officials are already being treated in the public service. The public service are also dissatisfied with it, and the Government itself has shown that it is not satisfied with the way in which things are going in the public service, because last year it appointed a commission to enquire into whether justice is applied in the public service. I should have thought that it should have happened years ago that a Select Committee should be appointed by the House every year to analyse the work of the Public Service Commission. We do not know how many men are simply being kept back because they are a threatening danger to the men above them.

I do not think that the hon. member should deal further with that point.

That is my great objection. I foresee a fairly dark future for those people, although at first sight it seems as if they are entering a paradise. The public service is a paradise, but only for a certain group of people. There is too much injustice in the public service and that is my objection against this small group of people in the service of the Road Transportation Board—I do not know how many there are, but I have not yet heard the same complaints from their side as we hear from people in the public service—also now being included under the Public Service Commission. That is my point.

I should like to explain, in the first place, in regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) that under another provision, not in this Act but in connection with the Railway Finance Act, the railways are contributing as far as the Pension Fund in concerned the amount that the Government would have contributed had these employees been pensionable during their period of service with the Road Transportation Boards. The hon. member will I think find that this year £5,000 has been provided for this purpose. It is not quite clear how many of the officials will avail themselves of this opportunity, but if more money is needed it will be voted in subsequent years. But this year we have voted a sum of money. During the period of the working of this board it has actually shown a profit, in the course of eleven or twelve years it has managed to accumulate a profit of £19,000. Anyway we are paying out of that fund contributions which if these men had been pensionable would have been given to them by the Government. That covers their emoluments during the period they were serving with the Road Transportation Boards. With regard to the points made by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg)—and it overlaps to some extent what was stated by the hon. member for Humansdorp—it will I am sure be quite clear to him that no employee can be transferred to the public service unless he himself wishes to be transferred.

Will they keep him in that position?

I do not think the hon. member has studied the whole Bill.

What happens to the official should he refuse to accept the new position?

If he refuses to transfer we cannot make him transfer. The hon. member rather played on the words “except with his own consent” something will happen. If the hon. member, and the hon. member for Humansdorp will read Clause 2 (5) they will find it makes it perfectly clear what the provisions are if they agree to transfer. The conditions under which they must be transferred are stated in Clause 2 (5) as follows—

The Minister will agree therefore he will either have to be prepared to join the civil service, or to resign.

No, no; he can remain in his present job without joining the Pension Fund at all. No one will be dismissed. It is free for them to join the pension fund or not. If he joins the pension fund he can get one or two other things which he can elect to take or not. But what we are doing today is to put him on the same basis as if from the date of him appointment in the Road Transportation Boards he has been a member of the pension fund. I would explain that no one in his senses would refuse the conditions we are offering these men, because they are very fair and very generous, and I think it is most likely that the majority of them will immediately transfer, and every provision has been made even to prevent what the hon. member suggested, that someone might say: You can accept the pension, but you will be on a lower salary. That cannot be done.

They might prefer to stay with their own bosses.

If they prefer to stay, that is their own business. But they will continue in their job as they are today.

They will not get a second option.

No, they will not get a second option, although special arrangements have been made for anybody who by virtue of being at the front, or for any other good reason, has not been able to exercise his option. The option will be given to every employee, and once he elects he must of course stick to it. I think those are the only two points that have been made, and I therefore move the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This is another formal Bill which I am asking Parliament to accept in order that authority may be granted to the railways to extend an avoiding line which at present runs from Maitland to Woodstock. Owing to the abnormal and remarkable development of traffic along the Cape lines (the victims of which many members of Parliament must daily be), I am sure it will be agreed that there is room for improvement on this particular section. The difficulty of widening the line through that area lies in the fact it is a heavily built up area, and though you might perhaps get four tracks it would be difficult to get any more. The purpose of this avoiding line is to enable trains arriving at Bellville, the beginning of the congested area, to be by-passed right into Cape Town, particularly the express trains, thus avoiding the congestion of local traffic on those lines. It is proposed that the line will run from Bellville and join up to the present Maitland by-pass or avoiding line at Kensington. The traffic on this line will primarily be main line traffic. There may develop in the course of time a certain measure of local traffic, but that will be easily handled. One of the matters which we are now dealing with in this area—and I think it is important hon. members should know this, because this avoiding line is part of the bigger scheme— is the development of a very big marshalling yard at Bellville. In the old days any goods traffic coming to the Cape came to our marshalling yards at Woodstock and was there sorted out for the docks and for other lines, and sorted out even for going back on the same track.

Would that not cause delay?

That would cause great delay, unnecessary delay, and in any case it is very bad railway practice. The point is, traffic should always be sorted out before the necessity arises for it having to be sent back along the route. On arrival at Bellville the traffic will be made up into different trains, one for the docks, another for Cape Town, and others for the various centres that are served by Cape Town as a distribution centre. The traffic affected is the outer-urban passenger traffic between Cape Town and the Stellenbosch route; the outward urban passenger traffic between Cape Town and Somerset West and the Strand; the local passenger traffic between Cape Town and Paarl, Wellington, and Worcester; the passenger and goods traffic between Cape Town and Klipdale and Bredasdorp. That is all being dealt with by Cape Town. All this goods traffic will be dealt with by Bellville and the traffic coming through to the docks and to Cape Town itself will be sent down the avoiding line, thus avoiding the congestion caused by the present arrangement. The House has had the report of the Railway Board, and I have no doubt hon. members have studied it, and I think there is very little I can add in regard to the technical details involved. I shall be glad, therefore, if the House will authorise me to proceed with the construction of this avoiding line.

I do not rise to oppose this Bill. With the experience we all have we welcome something of this nature to relieve this congestion and to increase facilities. But there are a few aspects of the Bill which I would like to refer to, and I shall be glad if we can receive information from the Minister on those points. In the first place this is a surprisingly expensive line. The costs in connection with it are very high. It will cost practically £96,000 per mile not only for the nine miles of line itself, but also for the approximately 2 miles of side-line. It is a surprisingly high cost for this trajectory in the neighbourhood of Cape Town, and the Minister must give us some information concerning the reasons for that high cost. Some of the reasons are explained in Annexure No. 2 accompanying the report of the Railway Board. One of the heads of expenditure is the purchase of ground. That is the second item of direct expenditure, and the estimated cost for the purchase of the ground is £67,425. I take it that this amount is required for the purchase of private ground. The Minister must tell us whether that ground has already been bought or whether it will still be bought. We want to know Whether it is the ground of private owners or whether it is possibly municipal ground. It is a very high amount for such a short distance, and the Minister must give this House some explanation of it. Round about Cape Town ground, of course, has no other value than building value. The question immediately arises, and the Minister did not reply to it satisfactorily, why he is going to purchase this ground and lay down a new route which will be considerably longer than the existing route. We who so often travel over this trajectory consider that the space along the route is sufficient to lay two more additional lines there. It also appears to be economical, and we know that it is not impracticable, because we know that it has for many years been the practice to build four lines next to each other in and near cities where ground is very expensive. But we now find that in this case a longer line is to be built along the new route, and so much money is asked for the purchase of the ground, that the Minister owes us an explanation as to why this longer route is chosen and why the additional expenditure is necessary. The second aspect concerns the line itself. Apart from the ground and the other improvements, the line cost £238,509. That is for a distance of approximately ten miles and it does not include all the improvements. It is just the line. There is a level stretch between Bellville and Cape Town, but for the 10.8 miles we find that the average cost is something like £22,000 per mile. I take it that that is for the railway lines and the sleepers, because the other improvements are additional to that. Mention is made of wagon bridges and signs, of which the estimated costs are £189,243. It is really a puzzle to us that such a large amount should be required for bridges and signs. How many bridges must be built? In the past it was the accepted principle that where the railways build a road bridge in an urban area, the local authority must also, as in the case of Cape Town, contribute towards the erection of those essential improvements, in order to safeguard the traffic of the public. But here a large amount is asked for, and I think that the Minister owes us a further explanation. But a matter which worries me even more is that the route along which the line is built, according to the map, is not yet completely built up. Three, four or five areas are indicated in the map as apparently having been set aside for building. I draw the conclusion that these cut-up sites have not yet been completely allocated or built upon. There is still a fairly large scope for building purposes. According to the map, this trajectory traverses a certain area where there will be later development for housing purposes. In fact, that is one of the prospects held out in the report of the Railway Board. We are informed that—

We know that there is a great housing shortage in the large cities, and the building of this line in that area will undoubtedly assist development because there will be a particularly good means of transport to that area. But, from the nature of the aim, the construction itself, there must flow one result, namely that the value of ground in that area must rise. One of the problems facing the Government of the day is just the problem of finding ground for the building of dwellings for the lesser privileged classes. In my opinion it seems to be a pertinent question in connection with this construction scheme, and the report mentions that the construction of the line will assist the development of that area. Where the State is going to assist in the development of these areas by constructing a railway line, we have the right to ask how it will influence building plots. I now ask the Minister whether he took into consideration this question of the increase in price of building plots, and whether he took the necessary steps to prevent prices rising. If he did not do so, the question arises whether he, as Minister of Transport, collaborated with the Minister of Welfare, who in the first place is responsible for the provision of housing for that section of the population which today lacks housing. This important aspect brings in its wake that unless we take precautionary measures, the State will be still further contributing to the increase in the price of building lots required for the provision of housing for the less privileged sections. I shall be glad if the Minister would give us information on this point. The question is what the implications of the building of this line will be. A particularly heavy responsibility rests on the Minister and his colleagues serving with him in the Cabinet. I should just like to have some information about this. There is no objection to the construction of the railway line, but I want this information in connection with the implications, especially on the present vexed problems as regards housing for the less privileged sections.

Mr. Speaker, during last year and for some time before, I have been asking the hon. Minister to take into consideration the building of a railway between Johannesburg and Pretoria, which covers a far more important portion of South Africa than this particular line proposed and which will not take so long to build or cost so much. I am speaking on behalf of the Acting Prime Minister’s constituency, because he is not able to get up to speak on their behalf. I would like to ask the Minister whether he will accept an amendment to add—

We have a very large population there, a fast growing population and probably the most intelligent population. Just look at their member. They are having the greatest difficulty in getting to their work, and in connection with this we have Alexandra Township, where there are 60,000 people living with hardly any transport at all.

More than that.

Over 60,000 people without any transport at all. A line that would connect the metropolis of South Africa with the capital of South Africa. What better railway line can there be than that? This little railway line of eight miles which has been given to my friend here, I suppose as a sop for the good work he has done—I refer to the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) —is all very well, but I ask that we should be considered also. We on the Rand have become Cinderellas. We provide all the money for all the railways in the country, but nothing is done for us. Another line must be built, and very soon, to link up Johannesburg and Pretoria, otherwise I do not know how we will move our people in to their work, and if the great Johannesburg stands still the country stands still. I could stop for a long time at this point and put up the strongest case for a railway if I wanted to. My hon. friends know that I am right. My hon. friend the Minister knows I am right, but since he has become a Minister he is like all Ministers. You cannot move him. But if I cannot move him his constituents will move him, because the Rand wants this and they demand it. We have 32 seats and we demand that we should be given this railway, so that we can bring our people in to work. The Minister must take this into consideration. He must not just run round Cape Town and tell us that because there is a sea here they can get things we cannot get. We must have this railway and we know that the proposed railway to Vasco will bring work for our Mother City, but what about Johannesburg? That town is growing so big that the population increases by 20,000 every year. But no one thinks of Johannesburg.

They think it is a bushveld dorp.

They think they can take as much as they can out of it and then treat us as if we were Pampoendorp. We run South Africa and without us the country cannot be run. Speaking on behalf of Johannesburg—I cannot speak on behalf of the other members but I know they will support me and that the Acting Prime Minister must support it—we must have another railway line, because our buses cannot carry our people for more than seven or eight miles. It will not be long before Pretoria will be a suburb of Johannesburg. You cannot stop it. We have already got to Halfway House. How are you going to carry these people? It is a most important matter for Johannesburg, and now is the heaven-sent opportunity. Peace will be here in a day or two and a large number of men will be set free. I say to the Minister: Take your courage in both hands and do something big. Up to now he has not done anything big; and let you name go down to posterity as a successful Minister. We will even call it the Sturrock railway. We do not mind what we call it.

You are not being very complimentary.

We might even call a station Sturrock Station. I ask the Minister to do it. I have been told by an authority, although not a railway authority, that they can build this railway within one year. The railway to Vasco will take two years. I want to warn the Minister that he must not think that he can get away with a little smiling and being pompous because he will not get away with it. We are already after his blood about one matter in my constituency, that is the Wanderers. We will not let him get away with everything. Since he became Minister he has forgotten his old home town.

Good old Johannesburg.

Johannesburg wants this railway and has made up its mind to get it. The Minister must assist us. He need not worry about his Railway Board. They are only three blind mice. What he says will be agreed to by them. They are nice people but they do not really matter. I see there is something here about the Railway Board saying this and that. It is what he says that goes, and what we say to him must also go. He must consider that we must have this railway line. It is an easy gradient. It will go through Parkview and through the northern suburbs and we will have another line to Pretoria. Once more I impress upon the Minister, and I am speaking now with the voice of thousands upon thousands of people, that our position is getting worse and worse. It may even lead to a revolution if we do not get this railway. [Laughter.] Yes, you may laugh but these black men at Alexandra Township want cheap transport to their work and we cannot do it with motor buses. Motor buses cannot carry 60,000 people, and the Minister once told me himself that a bus cannot carry people further than eight miles. He once told me that you cannot carry traffic more than eight miles per bus; then you must have railways. We ask him for the railway. We ask him as a friend and a colleague to help us in our difficulty. I ask him to accept this little amendment, which will not take up much space on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, I rise because I honestly feel that I shall fail in my duty if I do not support the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) in his demand for a line from Johannesburg to Pretoria. There is no denying the fact that this country and this House, in particular, very often disregard the interests of one of the most important centres in this country, Johannesburg and the Rand. I say it is the most important centre. We know today that had it not been for the Rand South Africa would not have been on the map of the world.

It is not there now.

I think she is there, and will play a much greater part in world affairs in the future than she is playing today. I am thinking of fifty years hence when we will have a federation of African states. However, in that respect it is my humble submission this morning that this House should consider the claims of the centre which is contributing so enormously towards the welfare of this country. My colleague the hon. member for Hospital has referred to the expansion of Johannesburg as far as Halfway House. It is possibly forgotten for the moment that there is also expansion taking place from the North and today it is already very difficult to distinguish where Pretoria ends and where Johannesburg begins. I think that if the hon. the Minister were to go on the Pretoria train on any dav at, 5 p.m. or in the morning, from Pretoria he will find that the claim that is made here this morning is perfectly justified. There is no denying the fact that the present railway service on the present line cannot accommodate the public. The fact of the matter is that the serving soldiers during this war prefer to take a lift because they cannot get into the trains unless they squeeze into the compartments and corridors. We know the Johannesburgers as a fast moving people. They do not believe in wasting time. Unfortunately the poor members of Parliament from Pretoria and Johannesburg often get into trouble in Cane Town for speeding, because they are accustomed to fast moving and we cannot afford to waste time. If we want to be in Pretoria within half an hour we want to get there, and the only thing that can solve it is an extra line. Moreover, there is the north-western portion of Johannesburg—I refer to the areas represented by the hon. Minister of Finance, Craighall. Bryanstone and Ferndale—where there is surprising development taking place, and it is my submission that a line to Pretoria should leave from the north-western parts and go by way of a circular route back to Johannesburg through Germiston. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will give us some indication as to his policy. He must not refer us to boards. This House is the highest board of the country. We are tired of boards, and councils and commissions, and more boards. We do not wish to delegate our powers to boards. We in this House must have the first, second, third and last say in matters. There is too much of this business. We are tired of an hon. Minister telling us that he must wait for the report of this board. That is not right. We have the power and we must decide on policy. I support very strongly that claim for a second line to Pretoria. Now, there is another aspect I wish to touch upon this morning. Unfortunately I cannot help myself, but when I see anything affecting the working man in these Bills I have to rise. I see that these employees of the Transportation Boards will in future work under the regulations of the South African Railways and Harbours.

I am afraid the hon. member cannot touch on that matter.

I am sorry. I should have liked to touch upon it. However, I will leave it for a later occasion. In touching upon the development of railway lines and road motor transportation services there is also the further aspect which deserves the attention of this House. We are very fond of making up deficiencies by way of road motor transportation services. I am afraid that these deficiencies cannot be made up by those means. There is another case to be made out for Johannesburg, and that is the service of the non-European areas in Johannesburg. The member for Hospital referred to Alexandra Township. Unfortunately I cannot support the contention of the City Council of Johannesburg about a railway line to serve Alexandria, because it is still my submission that that township should be removed, because it is in an undesirable position.’ But to the north and south of Johannesburg we have quite a large non-European area developing. Many members of this House have argued—and they have my support, and I have argued on the same lines—that the non-Europeans in the cities should be separated from the Europeans. I have enunciated the principle of parallel development in separate areas, but one thing these people demand and are entitled to receive, and that is cheap, fast transport. Sir, we have today in these areas two lines. It is my submission that we require four lines. Under the Bill which will be introduced shortly, that area will expand enormously and more houses will be built. Neither bus services nor road motor transportation services will be able to serve those people. They require a railway line, and an electrified line at that. Apart from the line to Pretoria I have an idea—I have the facts right before me—that this House agreed a few years ago to double that line and to put in two more lines. Why was that never carried out? I sincerely hope that that policy will now be carried out and that the Rand will get the service to which it is entiled and which it demands.

I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to a problem which in my opinion merits his consideration. The end of the existing line from the Cape through Caledon and Bredasdorp is at a station known as Protein. He will know what that means, that the Government of the day considered that that was only a temporary terminus. Protem is the name given by the Administration to this station. It is not a very long distance. I should like to know from him whether he will not reconsider the necessity existing for the building of a railway line to Swellendam on the Garden Route. The distance of Swellendam, from the Garden Route to Protem, is only a short distance. If one wants to send goods per train from Swellendam, Robertson, or any of the places along the Garden Route, it must first come to the Cape, a deviation of hundreds of miles. If one could use a lorry to transport the goods it would be a different matter, but today the railways also control motor transport through its various boards, and one is not permitted to have petrol and tyres or tubes, and cannot receive a permit to transport the goods. Consequently, if I want to send a truckful of lucerne hay, it must first come to the Cape. That is a deviation of hundreds of miles, while the lines can be joined up within a few miles. It is an important part of the country. It is an area where there are large producers of wheat and wool, and the people have to buy lucerne and hay for the animals they keep. They must get fertiliser. They are forbidden to use lorries to transport the goods because the Railway Department refuses to grant permits. One experiences difficulty in getting trucks, and because that little length of line has not been built it costs the farmers hundreds of thousands of pounds to transport their goods. In the course of time it will cost them more to transport their goods than the railway line would have cost. I feel that we are justified in asking the Minister to take the matter into consideration. I do not wish to make a suggestion, but I feel that he ought to investigate the matter. I am sure that the line will cost much less than it costs the people in the vicinity to transport their goods.

Mr. Speaker, this morning a plea was put up for this railway from Johannesburg to Pretoria by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). I want to support in general terms the suggestions made, and I want to draw the attention of the Minister to a deputation which saw him a couple of years ago about the very thing proposed today, the building of an extra line from Johannesburg to Pretoria. In those days the proposal was to start the line from Krugersdorp and to open up a portion of new country on the way to Pretoria and so to relieve some of the strain which there is at present on the main line between Johannesburg and Pretoria. If I remember correctly one of the main reasons given by the Minister for not accepting the proposal made by that deputation—I may say that it was a very strong deputation representing the whole of the Pretoria constituencies, Krugersdorp and some other areas and representing very wide interests indeed— was that no matter how sympathetic he might be, it was quite impossible for him to consider the plea for another line, especially an electrified line, because he did not have the equipment; he did not have the material and therefore the matter would have to stand over. Well, it was very difficult, naturally, for us to reply to such an answer by the Minister. That line which we proposed would not only have opened up certain new areas but it would have helped to relieve the congestion on the existing lines, and, what is more, it would have been a paying line. Now, I am not going to argue whether this particular line, the line proposed here, is a paying line, but the amount of money which is being asked for to build this short line to Vasco, I venture to say is double the amount we need for the line in the north. I want to say that it seems to me that insufficient consideration has been given to our request. In this particular matter I do not want to oppose the claims of these people to a railway service, but I strongly want to support the suggestions made that much more serious attention should be given to the building of the line from Johannesburg to Pretoria, through that crowded area. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has referred in kindly terms to Pretoria as a suburb of Johannesburg. That, of course, we have known for quite a long time, having seen it in the friendly patronage of the Rand members, when on a recent occasion they came over to show visitors from overseas various places in Pretoria like the steel works. It is perfectly true that all that section of the Rand, Pretoria and Krugersdorp is fast coming together into one whole city or area, and the time is coming when the pressure of housing accommodation and industrial development will be such that the Minister will be forced to complete extensive railway plans for relieving the present pressure. I want to support very strongly the suggestions made this morning. I do not know whether it is possible to amend this Bill as suggested by the hon. member for Hospital, but I do want the hon. Minister to take very serious notice of the fact that there is a very strong volume of opinion amongst members on the Rand and in Pretoria that steps should be taken at once to build additional lines, lines for which we have been pressing for some time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister again to go into the matter of that line from Conroy to Tarkastad which I mentioned on a previous occasion. As the Minister is aware, there is a big company being floated in connection with the salt pans, which proposes to produce 1,000,000 bags of salt per annum, and it is essential that they should have transport facilities. Another point is that by so doing, you are linking up the two lines, which has always been advocated in the past. If there is congestion on the East London line, it could be switched over to the Port Elizabeth line. If there is congestion on the East London line the traffic should be switched over to the Port Elizabeth line. Then I should also like to ask the Minister when he is going to start the line from Sterkstroom to Durban. The people in the Midlands have a lot of trouble in sending their stock to market. When consigned to Durban it has to be carried via Bloemfontein. Stock falls away in condition a great deal during these long railway journeys; we lose as much as 6 lbs. on a sheep. If the line is built from Sterkstroom to Durban the journey to Durban would take about a day less. It must also be borne in mind that there are tremendous areas in the Transkei and the Midlands that at present have no railway facilities whatever. The Minister is smiling. I should like to tell him that the Midlands, and specifically the salt mines in the Midlands, are going to be a great asset. With the erosion works at Vlekpoort as well it is worth while joining up these 30 miles by a railway. I am sure that if the Minister goes into the matter he will find that the line is a paying proposition.

I hope the hon. Minister will today pay attention to the general discussion in this House, indicating that the need for railway expansion is very great. We know that the Minister will at once say that he is conscious of the necessity for the building of certain railway lines in South Africa, and that certain dead ends must be eliminated from our railway system. When he proposes a small branch line—I do not want to oppose the building of that line —I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the point made by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Sals), which is correct and is to the effect that the price estimated for the line is very far above the average price which we paid right throughout South Africa for the building of railway lines, and if my memory serves me right I am supported in this by a man like Dr. M. A. de Kock, who years ago, when he wrote his thesis, estimated that the average cost of building a railway line in South Africa is £1,000 per mile, so that the price being paid for this little line will be fairly far above the average price. The hon. Minister will of course be able to say what the reason is for this line being so far above the average price. I do not wish to oppose the building of the line, but seeing that the attention of the Minister and of this House will in the near future be continually devoted to the question of the building of new railway lines, there is a matter to which I want to refer. It is self-evident that members from various parts of the country will propose the building of one line or the other in the interest of their constituencies, but I should like us not to regard the matter from the point of view of the interest of our own constituencies, but that we should take the whole of South Africa into consideration. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) referred to a deputation which interviewed the Minister some years ago, and unfortunately this large deputation struck the Minister in a bad mood that day because he gave us a reply which was anything but reasonable. But this line which I wish to bring to his attention is supported by almost the whole of Pretoria, by members of Pretoria who were in this House at the time—and I think the members who are here today will support this—it was supported by the then member for Losberg (Mr. Britz), and I take it that the present member (Mr. Wolmarans) also supports it; it was supported by the then member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) who is still the member; it was supported by Rosettenville and Braamfontein, Parys and Potchefstroom—by the populations of those various areas. The Minister was approached by a strong deputation which met the Minister and the Railway Board and which pointed out the necessity for building the line. The Minister replied curtly. In spite of the fact that we told the Minister that no less a man than Dr. van der Bijl had said that he could inform the Minister that if he wishes the line to be built, material would be available, the reply of the Minister was curtly that there was no material available for the building of new lines. But that argument of the Minister’s is no longer applicable. To cut a long story short, the line proposed by us at the time was a direct line from Pretoria to Krugersdorp, via Randfontein, Fochville, Parys, Vredefort, Bothaville, Hoopstad, Dealesville to Petrusburg. The last mentioned few places I am adding this time because it is a natural development from the new great discoveries of gold-mining possibilities in the Western Free State. The first matter to be considered by the Railway Board is whether the proposed line will pay. If one asks whether the line will pay, one might just as well ask whether a line from Johannesburg to Pretoria will pay. Nobody will enquire whether a line from Johannesburg to Pretoria will pay, and the reason why I say that one should just as well put that question is because the amount of heavy traffic, the extent of the passenger traffic on that line, will be just as heavy as on the line which we have today from Pretoria to Johannesburg. Nobody with commonsense will waste time in asking whether such a line will pay. If one looks at the map, one will see that the first great object of the line will be to relieve the tremendous amount of bottleneck traffic which we are now forcing through Germiston and through Johannesburg. That line will go from Iscor, Pretoria, direct through Krugersdorp, and a large amount of traffic will therefore be diverted from the present too heavily burdened line. Not only will the whole of the West Rand, which must now go a long way round to get to Pretoria, be brought into direct contact with Pretoria, but portion of the traffic of the steel works will be diverted along that way and join up directly at Krugersdorp and Randfontein, and by the proposed building of this line the great mining development in the Western Free State, which is imminent, will be brought into direct contact with the West Rand, Western Transvaal and Pretoria. As regards the potential expansion and development of these areas it will have a tremendous effect. But the line will be quite justified even with the present traffic. The West Rand will be brought into contact with Iscor, and there are many important mines on the West Rand, including Rand Leases, Luipaardsvlei, West Rand Consolidated, Randfontein—one of the greatest— Venterspost, Libanon, West Wits and down to Machali. All these mines will be in direct contact with Iscor and Pretoria, something which today is achieved only by making a detour through Germiston. I think that no one is better aware of the difficulties caused by this, with regard to the amount of traffic passing through Germiston and Johannesburg, than the Railway Administration itself. The whole of the passenger traffic of the greatest centra of the Union must pass through there, and the Minister must not forget that at Germiston a great portion of the traffic from the West Rand to the East Rand crosses. It crosses there, and from the point of view of commonsense, instead of forcing everything through Germiston, new areas will be opened if the line is laid as indicated by me. To build an additional line from Pretoria to Johannesburg next to the existing line, is in conflict with all commonsense. The natural development is the line I have suggested, and the building of it is supported by the bodies I have mentioned. That is the natural line. Then the bottleneck congestion will be relieved a little. I now notice that the Minister intends, for example, to build a large goods shed to the east, on the other side of Johannesburg, and the great locomotives which have to take the traffic from Pretoria and Johannesburg to Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, Bloemfontein and Kimberley, will then have to travel that distance from the East Rand to Johannesburg every day in order to take the traffic to all these various places. Therefore in addition to the existing heavy traffic through Germiston there will also be this* traffic. That militates against commonsense. Commonsense prescribes what I have suggested, and if one builds that line one also acquires a natural place for building a goods shed. It will be on the route along which the traffic is taken to the south, to Cape Town, East London, Port Elizabeth, and such places. To build it on the other side, on the East Rand, may be in the interests of certain people who have ground for sale there, or people who have interests there, but the Minister and his Railway Board will not convince me that it is to the interest of South Africa. Fortunately or unfortunately Krugersdorp is situate along the route in connection with which I am proposing the building of the line, but even if I should be representing, for example Lydenburg, I would still say that commonsense dictates that the line must be built and not the line proposed by the Minister to a deputation the other day, when he said: I intend to build another line next to the existing line from Pretoria to Johannesburg. That is not what commonsense dictates, because the main line is also subject to climatic conditions, and if one has ten lines next to each other and there is a flood, the traffic over all ten lines is interrupted. The only way out is to divide the traffic over different routes. Climatic conditions on the Witwatersrand also have an effect, for example, on the electrical installations. If there were to be a delay in Germiston, traffic will be affected in East London, in Cape Town, in Kimberley, in Bloemfontein and in other places, but if we do not build the lines next to each other and there is a flood, or the electrical power units go out of order, there is always a chance to divert part of the traffic along the other route.

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

I wish to say further than I hope that the Minister will now start giving consideration to something his board recommended years ago already, namely to put an end to all the dead ends now to be found in our railway network. And when I speak about that, will you again come to the conclusion that I am not busy pleading for one constituency but for all and for the whole of South Africa? I think for example of the Beit Bridge and Messina, Fochville—which will be eliminated if the line I proposed is built—Golel, Piet Retief. That is a line which was suggested by a Government department, so that those dead ends should be eliminated. Then there is vaal; Wildfontein, which will also be eliminated if the line I suggest is built. There is Steelpoort in the Northern Transvaal; Wildfonein, which will also be eliminated by the line I have suggested; Arling in the North-Eastern Free State. Immediately three dead ends will be eliminated by building the line I suggested this morning, namely Fochville, Parys and Bothaville. When this line is built it will be equal to any of the great lines to the north. The hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) said that we should note what had recently happened at Standerton. What could have been done if there were no deviation which could be made use of? If years ago the Sturrock policy had been applied and all the lines built next to each other from Durban to Johannesburg and from Cape Town to Johannesburg, what could have been done if anything went wrong on those lines? We have so often had the experience at Germiston and at Johannesburg that if something goes wrong on a line there is delay on all the lines for traffic and passengers. This will be a line which goes from the great centra in the Northern Free State and will link them up in an efficient manner with Pretoria. I hope that this House will agree with me that when we speak about the building of railway lines, we should not only think of our own constituencies but of the whole of South Africa. In saying that, I hope that the House will also agree with me that this line I have suggested is the most important line for us to build. I want to allege that the line which I have suggested is the most important of all lines in all parts of the Union of South Africa which should be built.

I wish to confine myself exclusively to the Bill before us. I think it is the undoubted opinion of every member that it is very essential that the congestion which took place in recent years on this bit of line should be relieved and that we should make provision for it. We all welcome this suggestion. What I should like to know from the Minister of Transport is whether when the double-line from Bellville to Kensington is built, the rebuilding of the following three stations will also take place. The first is Bellville. Although the station buildings are not very old, it is a fact that they are very inefficient. Bellville is at a junction, and very often when one comes there one sees that passengers have to wait in the sun or in the rain, it may be for hours. No proper provision has been made for them. I also want to point to the inconvenience which coloureds have to suffer there. The provision made for them is hopelessly inadequate. In most cases they must simply mix with the natives, for whom also very little provision has been made. It is undesirable and unsatisfactory. Another station is that of Parow and Vasco. The latter has practically no station building. I hope that with the building of this double line, proper station buildings will be erected in proportion to the use made of these stations. I do not want to quote figures, but the fact is that thousands of people daily use those two stations, and it is very inadequate as things are now, and very inconvenient. As I have already said, the doubling of this line is very essential, but I should like to direct the Minister’s attention to the fact that what is proposed by his Bill is only a temporary measure. It will only bring temporary relief. If we consider the development which was in progress during the last twenty years on those two lines, we can say today that after another twenty years those lines will again be hopelessly inadequate. For that reason I wish to suggest that the Minister should thoroughly investigate the following scheme which I wish to propose, namely to have a deviation which starts at Mulder’s Vlei and then to build a line from Eerste River through the Cape Flats. That will bring much relief to the line from Bellville to Kensington. Not only will it bring great relief, but I wish to give the Minister the assurance that it will be one of the best investments for the railways to build a line from Eerste River through the Cape Flats. That is one of the areas in the direction of which Cape Town must develop. It is the only suitable area for proper housing schemes, as well as for industrial expansion. At the same time it will not only relieve the double line and the bottle neck at Bellville, but it will cause the development of those areas, and it will be a great asset to the railways. It will at the same time improve and speed up the service of Somerset West and Somerset Strand and we know that those are two places which are fast developing. It will also develop those areas because the people can be brought to Cape Town in a shorter period of time. I hope that the Minister will devote his serious attention to these matters, and especially to the last point raised by me.

When I lay before the Minister the little bit of line which I want to plead for, he will at once see that it surely is the most important one mentioned here today. He should just take the railway map, and he will at once see that it is something which is still lacking. What is more, it was at one time approved of and the surveying was done, but then unfortunately the Government adopted the policy of building no more lines. The little line I am talking about is from Somerset East to Klipplaat. If I want to come here from my part of the country, I must make a deviation of 200 or 300 miles to get to De Aar, or to Port Elizabeth. I am thinking especially of the scarcity of meat in Cape Town. We can easily send supplies to Cape Town, but under the present circumstances, if I want to send my cattle, they must travel 200 or 300 miles out of their way. And what is still more important, it is a link which is missing in our railway system straight through from the west to the east. It has been completed, except for the part between Somerset East and Klipplaat Portion of the line was approved, from Somerset East in the direction of klipplaat, and was already in the estimates, but unfortunately it was then again taken out of the estimates. It is not necessary to speak further about the matter. If the Minister would just look at the map he would realise the meaning of that little link.

It seems as if the Minister of Transport in introducing this Bill in connection with the lengthening, or the doubling, of this line, not only put his head into a hornet’s nest, but that he created an opportunity for the House to discuss, every possible and impossible railway line in the country. It is self-evident that after the construction of railway lines has been stopped for such a long time, if a line like this is constructed, everyone will make use of the opportunity granted to plead for a line which perhaps should have been built already. I do not wish to discuss any matter here in an irresponsible manner, but I should like to draw the Minister’s serious attention to the necessity for the extension of the line between Protem and Swellendam. This is undoubtedly a case where the route to the north will be shortened by hundreds of miles. I think the Minister is fully acquainted with the circumstances in connection with the Whole matter. He knows for what reason the line at that time did not go through to Swellendam and why it stopped at Protem. As the name indicates, it was temporary. But for the information of hon. members it is perhaps necessary to say—perhaps it is not generally known— that the new Cape Central Railways which built the railway from Worcester to Mossel Bay had a contract with the South African Railways which prohibited the building of any line within a certain distance from the new Cape Central Railways line. That had as its result that it was impossible to proceed with the railway line, when it was originally built to Swellendam. The result was that it had to stop at Protem. I can well remember how, when I was a young man, approximately 43 years ago, the then Minister of Railways, Mr. Burton, said at the opening of the railway line: “We are today standing here at Protem, which means ‘temporary’, because we are prevented from building the line through to Swellendam.” Therefore, if there had been no contract in existence between the South African Railways and the New Cape Central Railways, the line would probably at that time have been carried through to Swellendam. If it was necessary 43 years ago to connect up Cape Town and Swellendam, it is undoubtedly still more necessary after 43 years of development. The line has already been surveyed. It is a short distance, I think less than 40 miles, and it goes over level terrain. It will not cost much to build the line. But let us take into review for a moment the advantages to be derived from the linking up of these two points. In the first place the route to the north will be shortened by hundreds of miles. We will shorten the distance of the southwestern districts to Cape Town, for the transportation of their vegetables and fresh products, considerably. It will shorten the distance from the western districts to Mossel Bay, the eastern districts and further to Port Elizabeth. Let us not forget that Port Elizabeth is fast developing into a great industrial centre which will need much more of our products, and vice versa, which can be transported by the railways. I know that the Minister will do everything in his power to build certain railways. Whether he will be able in these difficult times to give effect to what he should like to do in connection with the building of railway lines, is another matter, but here we are dealing with a connection which will serve an essential purpose which has been postponed for 43 years. We are dealing with a connection in regard to which there is a tremendous agitation. Various deputations interviewed former Ministers, and the matter was postponed as a result of the war. The agitation set in motion is again proceeding, and I can give the Minister the assurance that it will continue until the line is built. We cannot blame the people. I think that the Minister has already been asked to grant an interview in the course of the next week in regard to this line. I see in the Minister someone of whom I have always been very fond, and who is the right type of Scotch gentleman, and I should like him to be known as the man who brought about that extension of the line and who connected the three most important districts of the south-west, namely Bredasdórp, Swellendam and Caledon in a proper manner. That is one of the reasons why I rose to plead for the linking up of these three points. While I am speaking about the shortening of distances, I want to say that it is surely the general policy of the railways to shorten distances as far as possible. We see that that is done everywhere, also in connection with main line, and in this regard I want to ask the Minister to keep in mind the shortening of the line Worcester-Villiersdorp-Caledon, which will appreciably shorten the line linking the south-western districts with the north. It is a shortening which recently again came to the foreground. In the past it was earnestly pleaded and there was a great agitation, and the reason why it was not done in the past was the difference of opinion which existed about the point of junction on the Caledon line. If the Minister will grant the necessary facilities for the improved linking up of that area from Villiersdorp to Worcester and Elgin, which is an intensively cultivated area, it will do much to assist in improving conditions there. The Minister will undoubtedly have to deal with the shortening of the line, and it will serve two purposes. It will shorten the distance to the north for the hundreds of thousands of bags of produce from the south-western districts, and it will bring the areas of Caledon’ and Bredasdorp much nearer to the north, and by so doing the Minister will undoubtedly be rendering an important service to the country. I should like the Minister, if he is not aware of it, to consult his files in order to see since when there has been agitation for the building of a line from Protem to Swellendam, and if the Minister studies the representations made, it will more than convince him of the necessity for the building of that connection.

A large amount is asked for for the building of a railway line. I should just like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that there are important parts of our country where railway development is urgently required. One finds for example that there is the necessity to have a line from Sterkstoom, Elliot, to join up at Kokstad. That is an area which, if it receives this line, will be able to market its products in Durban much more easily, because it will bring the market much nearer. In East Griqualand there has been agitation for years to get this connection. It is one which will not cost much, not as much as doubling the lines in great cities. It is but a single line and it will go through an area which is very fertile. It is an area which ought to receive the attention of the Government. For the rest I want to say that if we consider the line through the Free State today, there was a great agitation to have a double line to the north, namely from Aliwal to go right through and to link up at Vereeniging. That eastern portion of the Free State is the most important producing area of the whole Free State; it is thickly populated and it is an area which should receive attention.

That is good also.

I will ask the hon. member to attend the opening ceremony. He visited Aliwal recently and stated that he never knew that there was such a wonderful place as Aliwal North. He spoke about the “queen of the border”. The other day I was travelling and somebody stood alongside the road, and I offered a lift to a beautiful lady, and she said to me: “You were so good as to give me a lift. Where do you come from?” Somebody else was present, a Professor of history—not from Stellenbosch. He then also asked where I had come from. I said: “From Jamestown”. He asked where the place is and I told him that I hoped that is the place where the railway line would pass, from Jamestown to Aliwal, to have a double line to Johannesburg. He then asked me where the place is. I then told him it is the capital of St. Helena. He then said that he now realised that it is the capital of St. Helena. One finds this type of person who does not even know the history of our own country, and they do not realise the necessity of linking up the eastern Cape, which is thickly populated, with the rest of the country. I further wish to ask that the railway line should be lengthened from Sterkstroom via Dordrecht and Indwe and then through Natal. That is number one. The second is the railway line from Aliwal via Coalbrook to link up with the eastern parts of the Free State, which are also very important. Number three is the connection Molteno-Jam estown-Aliwal. If that is done the Minister will at once solve his problems, and I feel that it should be done before we spend large sums in building lines in the cities.

Nearly every hon. member who has spoken this afternoon and also this morning, has asked for a railway line to be built in his constituency, or somewhere near his constituency. I am going to ask the Minister to go off the rails for a change ….

Do not go off yourself.

…. and before spending any money on building more railways I would like to put this question to the hon. Minister. Is it not more important to serve the needs of the whole country and to have road motor transportation services extended so that all sections of the country can benefit by any additional expenditure? Here I must confess I have also to be somewhat selfish, and to point out there are certain areas in my constituency that are not being properly served today. But I am not asking for a railway line. I am getting off the rails myself. I am asking for bus services once more between little places like Geluksburg and Ladismith, Normandie and Newcastle, these places which are not served at all today, these places where there are large numbers of our people eking out an existence; where there are large numbers of our people living below the bread-line today. If these people could get the necessary road motor services there and in all the other scattered places in the country, if they could have road motor services which are so necessary to bring their products to the rail heads we need not have this huge capital expenditure to build railway lines which only benefit the few. We must consider the needs of the many versus the needs of the few.

There is an inclination to view the matter of railways rather ironically. At any rate, that is the impression I have gained here today. I want to state that railways play an important rôle in the country. The Minister is sitting there and he has been prepared for some years; we know what his answer will be: No and again no. It is a very serious matter, when we remember that in the past railways were one of the profitable enterprises that served the State; railways were not a failure; railways were an asset to the State in the past. No one can deny this. With all diffidence I want to say that I cannot appreciate why the construction of railways has come to a standstill in this country. I repeat that theý are a national asset. Not a single enterprise has yielded such a large surplus as the railways—a nett profit of £50,000,000—why should this have to come to a standstill? The country has so much need, so great a demand for new railways. What is to prevent us developing this national facility? One comes to the conclusion that a Railway Board is really no longer necessary. Why have we got a Railway Board if new railway lines are not being built? Just think what it costs the State. The fact that almost every member in his House has stood up today affords proof that the country needs railways. Just think too of the labour force that is required in the construction of railways. To a certain point it provides a solution of our unemployment problem; think of the employment that is provided for Europeans and nonEuropeans after the railway has been built. Consequently I want to make an appeal to the Minister and to tell him the time has come for new railways to serve the country and the people. I challenge the Minister to tell me during this debate where there has been a single railway line that has been a failure, that has not paid, and on the other side we can mention numbers of ventures that have proved a failure, that have represented a useless waste of money, but that cannot be said about railways. We can think of no other enterprise that is on the same footing as railways in connection with all the facilities it bestows on people. Now that we are on the threshold of the return of thousands and tens of thousands of soldiers who will have to find employment, is it not urgently necessary that the Minister should immediately begin with the building of railways to provide temporary employment to the returning engineers and others. I say that this is an urgent matter and I want to point out to the Minister that where an undertaking is given by the Minister that a new railway line will be built, it will be a tremendous help in connection with providing assistance to returning soldiers. We realise how urgently necessary the building of railways is to the country. Every member stands up and pleads for it. We have seen that nearly every member has risen in his place to advocate the construction of new railway lines. There has been neglect and a very serious neglect in this connection in the last five years, but we cannot let this neglect continue. We should like to see this country a network of railways from one end to the other. It is a national service. This young country requires railways, but our Minister is just sitting there, shaking his head and laughing to himself, and he is sitting there with a nett profit of £50,000,000 a year. Now I want to make an appeal to the Minister. The area that I represent borders on South-West Africa, which is connected with Cape Town via Kalkfontein and De Aar, the distance being about 800 miles, while a connection between Bitterfontein and Kalkfontein would reduce the distance to 500 miles.

How far is it from Bitterfontein?

From Bitterfontein to Upington it is 300 miles. This is a connection between the Cape Province and South-West Africa. The present connection between De Aar and South-West Africa is a connection designed for the North and not Cape Town. I wonder why the Cape Provinde has been so Quiet and docile that they have ceased to agitate for a direct line between Cape Town and Windhoek, seeing that we have not got one today.

Do you want to bring the Nationalists down from there?

Our friend who has made that remark lives in Johannesburg. He is ignorant of our difficulties. His thoughts are centred in Johannesburg. Well, it is a big city, we know that, and there is a lot there that can keep him employed, but Johannesburg has a network of railways. We do not grudge them that and I think even more will have to be built. Then the hon. member will crow a little less. If the hon. member will drive round and gather some knowledge about the Union of South Africa he will see that there are parts that still are without railways. We are not pleading here for a new railway, we are only asking that the Minister should bestow his attention on the building of link lines from dead-ends and where those dead-ends are active and these connections are built, it will be a tremendous asset to the country and the Minister will lose nothing by it. A railway is a paying asset. I want to make a strong appeal to the Minister while he has the money and while the war situation permits it, that he should make a start to meet this need that has existed for years. I have in mind the bottleneck on the other side of Worcester and the Hex River. Our friends here have been talking about the bottleneck at Johannesburg. Well, there are many branch lines that can be used should a mishap occur on one of those main lines. But if one of the tunnels in the Hex River Mountains collapsed there would have to be a suspension of traffic for months, and then we in Cape Town and in the Western Province would be sunk.

Absolutely.

The railway has been made from De Aar to Kalkfontein and South-West Africa, and if we can make a connection between Bitterfontein and Kalkfontein then we shall have another line, although it is a deviation, in case a breakdown should occur in this bottleneck. I am pleading not for just one railway but for all the railway requirements in the country. I also want to put in a word for the needs of Rustenburg. That constituency requires certain railway extension. I want to emphasise that railway extension is urgently necessary in our country. There is a need of railways in the country. We must make preparations and frame plans to fulfil these urgent requirements.

I want to congratulate the Minister on having selected the most important constituency in South Africa for the one terminal point of this railway.

Do you really mean that?

It is very essential to have a better connection, but we also see in the Bill that there will be expansion of the goods sheds at Bellville, with the result that provision will be made for housing schemes for Europeans, coloureds and natives. The passenger service between Bellville and Cape Town will increase appreciably, and will now be able to be much improved. Cape Town has its housing problems, and the only solution lies in better connection with the places inside a radius of eight or ten miles round about Cape Town. Therefore we regard this line as very important. I only want to bring to the Minister’s attention that where he now has the opportunity to improve the passenger traffic and to extend it, he should not only consider what the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) said here in connection with facilities for natives and coloureds, that there should not only be improvement as regards passenger traffic and goods traffic, but that the Minister should at last provide, in the public interest, for that segregation of natives, coloureds and Europeans which the public desires on the railways. I do not ask the Minister to solve the whole colour problem, or that he should institute a colour bar. I only ask that he should recognise public opinion as regards this Bill, and while we are thankful that the Bill provides for better passenger traffic between Cape Town and Bellville we should like a policy of segregation to be followed in connection with it: In the past we tried to carry out that policy by making provision for special trains and special compartments in trains for coloureds, Europeans and natives. In the Cape Peninsula we have three-quarters of the coloureds of the Union, and I ask, in the interest of the coloured, the natives and the Europeans, so that unpleasantness should not arise on the trains, that proper provision should be made for the accommodation of all three sections. I am convinced that it is the wish of all three groups of the population. I have said enough to indicate that we are highly satisfied with this development. The Minister admitted that an important part of South Africa will be served by this line and that a start should be made with the selection of goods traffic before Cape Town is reached. I hope that the Minister will manage to commence a policy of segregation in the railways.

I am aware that the Government is giving very serious attention to the question of broadening the narrow-guage line between Port Elizabeth and Avontuur, but I would like to use this occasion again to bring the question before the hon. Minister and the House. It is not necessary for me to go into the question of the advantages which will be derived, but it is a very urgent matter. If one considers that the line could be extended from Avontuur to Kamfer, then the line from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town will be considerably shorter. I would also like to support the plea of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) where he pleaded for an extension of the line between Protem and Swellendam. I do so perhaps from a selfish point of view, in view of the fact that it takes an unconscionably long time to travel from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth.

Is that a national matter?

Yes, I think it is. On account of the fast train being taken off between Cape Town and Port Elizabeth it takes us 39 hours to do the 600 odd miles. I do think that the time has arrived when very serious consideration should be given to the question of linking up the two big cities in the Cape Province, cities which will be expanding and growing to a large extent in the near future.

I wish most emphatically to support the plea raised by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) and the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock), for another line between Pretoria and Johannesburg. I am not concerned with whether Pretoria is a suburb of Johannesburg or whether Johannesburg is a suburb of Pretoria, but I do think that these two vital and big centres are deserving of more consideration than they have received during the last 10 years. It amazes me that this little place, Cape Town, can get from this Minister a new harbour costing millions, thousands of acres of ground reclaimed from the sea, as well as now also being allocated a further three-quarters of a million pounds for the construction of an extra railway line.

That is for goods going to Johannesburg.

It appears to us on the Rand that we have to foot the bill, but when it comes to railway facilities all they want to do is to take things away from us. They want to take the Wanderers. For a period of years now we have laid our claims for this railway line, but nothing appears to have been done about it, and the excuse was made in the past that there was neither the equipment nor the labour. We accepted that, but now out of the blue comes this new line, which the one hon. member who is benefiting by it has never said a word about. I want to bring to your notice some real evidence in connection with the necessity for this line between Pretoria and Johannesburg, and if hon. members study this report of the commission appointed to enquire into the operation of the bus services for non-Europeans in Johannesburg, they will see that it refers most emphatically to the difficult conditions we are suffering under on the Rand. On page 20, paragraph 245, they say with regard to the transport, particularly with regard to non-European transport—

And in paragraph 255 they say—

Then they give you tables of figures which show that whereas if this line to Pretoria were developed a place like Alexandria Township, housing anything up to 70,000 natives could be served, the native today is paying a matter of 18s. 9d. per family for transport fares, compared with the Orlando native who is served by a train and who pays 8s. 6d. a month. It gives the percentage of their income, and these percentages are far in excess of what the native worker can afford to pay. In Alexandria 12.6 per cent. of a man’s wages, as a fixed cost, is used for transport. Where they are served by railways, as in Orlando, it is 5.6 per cent. In every other European country the workman, who has to have cheap transport because of his low wage, is housed near his factory, but here we segregate the native labourers. But if we do that we have to give them facilities for transport. I would also refer to a further item in this report, on page 21, Section 9, which emphasises this, in the concluding remarks. It says—

This all goes to show the necessity for the provision of cheap railway transport for the workers on the Rand, and I must really ask the Minister why the demands that have been made in this direction have been ignored by him. I notice in this report that the Ministry of Transport stated, on the application of various bodies for railway lines that they have to explain to the persons and bodies concerned that it is the policy of the Administration not to construct new lines to serve specific interests unless an unqualified guarantee was given against all losses incurred in working such lines, and they go on to refer to the application by the Pretoria City Council. Later they say—

I think that the Minister, who undoubtedly understands railway matters like no other previous Minister of Railways has ever done, must appreciate the demands made by industry and by the people of Johannesburg for this railway line, and I would like to know whether the Minister will accept this amendment—

The Minister of Transport will remember that last year a strong deputation called on him in connection with a line from Jammersdrift in a northerly direction. The Minister promised to send the Railway Board there to enquire whether it was justified. Unfortunately he did not send them, with the result that the matter was not investigated. It will be one of the most important railway lines in the eastern part of the Free State, which is the fertile portion of the Free State. The line should run from Jammersdrift via Hobhouse, connecting with the line from Bloemfontein to Durban. It would not only go through a very fertile part of the Free State, but it would virtually be a second main line through the Free State which would ease the traffic from Johannesburg and Durban and also the goods traffic to East London. That railway line would pay handsomely. The department’s last advice was the loss would be £15,000 a year. I do not believe it would work out in that way, the department had not complete statistics. There are no fewer than eight cheese factories in that neighbourhood; development will increase and the traffic would be absolutely profitable. It lies on the borders of Basutoland, and there are hundreds of natives who have to go to the railway every year and who will be able to make use of the station at Hobhouse. That line was surveyed years ago. It will also prove one of the best railway lines for the strategic defence of the country. It is an undeniable fact that this railway will be the cheapest. It runs on high levels and not many bridges will be required. It will give us a connection to Durban, East London and Johannesburg. The argument has been used that we should make do with motor buses. Well, it takes the motor buses four or five months every year to take off our harvest. That causes the greatest inconvenience to the farmers. It is not always that they have storage place to store the products, and damage occurs. This transport moreover costs them 75 per cent. more than railway transport. Many of the farmers do not develop their land for agriculture as they could do, on account of the disabilities connected with transport. I hope that the Minister will fully invstigate this question and enquire whether this railway will be payable. We are convinced that it will pay. When he receives a report from the Railway Board it will be evident that this railway is one of the first that should be built, because it will not only serve those areas but it will be an asset to the country as a whole.

An amount of £737,000 is being asked for the improvement of the railways in the Cape Peninsula. I can understand that it is necessary, but I cannot omit to rise in my place and plead for a few railway lines which in my opinion are of more importance than this one. I am thinking of certain link lines. I do not want a complete railway, but a few connections which will have the effect of saving hundreds and hundreds of miles. In the first place, I have in mind a railway line from Mafeking to Lichtenburg. It is a distance of about 40 miles. Then I am thinking of a railway from Lichtenburg to Coligny which will stop there, and I should like to see a connection between Coligny and Klerksdorp, a distance of another 40 miles. Then this line would run from Bothaville to Bultfontein, and there should be a connection at the best point with the main line, a distance of about 30 miles. In all it is a distance of about 110 miles that I am asking. That line would cost about £6,000 a mile, with the bridges a little more the line itself would thus cost about three-quarters-of-a million pounds, and with the bridges about £1,000,000. But if one goes into the value of the line this £1,000,000 is but a drop in the bucket. It would be going through the area between Mafeking and Lichtenburg; I accept that there is not a terrible lot produced there, but take from Coligny to Klerksdorp. That is in the heart of the mealie area of the Western Transvaal. The land hungers for mealies but one of the biggest stumbling blocks is the lack of means of transport. In the past we gained assistance from the Defence Department with their lorries, but at present it is proving extremly difficult to transport the mealies, with the result that many of the farmers say that unless better transport is available they will not be able to produce on such a big scale as they would if good transport was provided. I do not want to talk about mealies now, but I wanted to associate this railway with the maize industry. As far as concerns that area it is absolutely vital to have better railway transport. Let us take now Bothaville and Bultfontein and the section to the junction with the main line. We see what the future of the mining industry is going to be in those parts. The eyes of all are turned on the Free State. I am not a large shareholder and I do not take much interest in the Stock Exchange, but I read the reports of the share market, and I have noted that the greatest interest is being taken today in the Free State. I hope you will not consider that I am talking about something I know nothing about. That area is not in my constituency, but I can realise the value a railway will have in that area. It is a distance of about 100 miles, and anyone can judge for himself the great value it would be for the country. If there ever was a line that could be justified it is this line, bearing in mind the maize industry and bearing in mind the development of those parts as well as the great development that we may expect in the Free State. I think that everyone will admit that my plea in regard to this line rests on a sound basis. At present we are devoting much money to the war; the Cabinet is still in a war mood and the war comes first with them. But if we consider what amounts have been expended on the war I believe that we have a right to plead for this railway connection. The Minister must take the bull by the horns. He reminds us that such railways cost money, but he should take notice of the representatives of the country. There is hardly a member who has not stood up here to plead for a railway or a railway connection. The Minister should place the responsibility on us and also the blame. It is not that he is afraid to accept the responsibility, but it will be a support to him to know that the country’s representatives in this House believe that there should be railway expansion in the country.

I do not begrudge the good fortunë of Cape Town, but I do feel that I must strongly support the pleas put forward by previous speakers in regard to another line from Johannesburg to Pretoria. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) referred to Johannesburg as the milch cow. Well, all I can say as far as Pretoria is concerned, is that it seems to be a lifeless tail of Johannesburg in so far as railway development is concerned. In Pretoria we do not know what it is to have a full passenger train and I feel that until such time as we have another railway line we will have to continue with the unsatisfactory state of affairs of having just occasional through-saloons to various parts of South Africa. Two points of view have been put forward; firstly that the railway line should go through the northern suburbs of Johannesburg and the other from Krugersdorp I feel that a very strong case indeed has been made out in favour of a railway line from Krugersdorp by strong deputations, but whichever line it is, I feel that it will be justified, and very necessary, if we wish to see the land between these two cities developed. As we all know, the question of land today for residential purposes is becoming a very difficult problem indeed, and unless railway development takes place, I am afraid other Ministers will find it very difficult to find the necessary land to carry out the various housing schemes. I therefore appeal to the Minister, if he is not in a position now to give the House the assurance to be able to tackle such development in so far as Pretoria and Johannesburg are concerned, will he assure the House that it will receive his serious consideration in the very near future. Before sitting down,. I would like to make another appeal to the Minister in so far as Attridgeville is concerned. It was referred to in the House this afternoon, that the transport difficulties of the non-European residents in Johannesburg are very great indeed. In the report quoted by the previous speaker, he referred to the Pretoria municipality. The Pretoria municipality has been trying for years to have the railway line extended to Attridgeville and the usual reply has been that there is no material or vehicles. I quite appreciate that in the course of this war, it has been very difficult indeed, but when we find that it is possible to carry out the new construction work in Cape Town in accordance with this Bill, then I do feel that it should not present a very serious difficulty to find the necessary material to extend the line to Attridgeville. I understand it is a matter of two or three miles. It has been argued by senior officials that one of the greatest difficulties is rolling stock as well as finding the permanent way. Yesterday I took a run out to Milnerton and I saw a railway line absolutely rusting. I am told that this railway line is only for conveying racehorses. If that is so, then I do feel that before it rusts very much more, Pretoria will be only too happy to have that railway line removed from Milnerton to Attridgeville.

We have just heard from the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens) that he advocates certain connections in order to obtain a direct line. I do not want to oppose him, nor would I go against the fortunate people here in the Peninsula obtaining their new services. But I feel that the most important of all the country’s railway requirements has not yet been brought before the notice of the House. Today the eyes of the nation are focussed on the Kroonstad constituency. It is there where the new developments must occur. They are pleading for railways running in various directions, and they do not take into consideration that that line which is running through must fulfil all the national requirements. It has to serve that part, and not only regarded from the angle of gold mining development, but there is a large area situated there that is not served by a railway line. It is an area that is very productive, and one of the areas which provides a large proportion of the mealies in the whole of the Free State, and when you are referring to new railway lines you can only decide the route such a line would follow when you bear in mind all the different factors, and for that reason I shall not today advocate the construction of railway lines or indicate where such lines should be laid down. It will require careful investigation to determine what will be the best way to get that connection, but I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister that as we are now on the threshold of peace and we know that the Minister has published several statements and expressed the view that post-war problems must be tackled I think it will be in the interests of the whole country if the Minister stood up here and gave the country the assurance that he has his eye fixed on the future. Is his policy going to be a general expansion along the present railway routes, or is he going to confine himself principally to the extension of bus services and the building of roads? We have always got the reply from the Minister that he is not prepared at this stage to go into the question of building new railway lines. There are districts where one may be satisfied with bus services, but there are other districts where bus services do not fulfil the requirements, and it is in this connection that I wish to invite the Minister’s attention to the new goldfields in the Free State. The nearest harbour town to the goldfields will be Durban, and that line from Durban to Kroonstad will have to transport all the necessities for the development of the goldfields. There is another aspect of the matter which should be taken into consideration. In that constituency there is not only the prospect of gold mining development but a tremendous quantity of cement is being manufactured there. All those essentials required for the development of the goldfields cannot as a practical proposition be conveyed 100 miles to the north and then brought back to the points where they are needed. I hope the Minister will see his way clear to give us a clear announcement of his policy. We know that the Minister told us last year, and I believe it is still his intention to proceed with the doubling of the line from Kroonstad to Bloemfontein. It is also a very important aspect of development as far as it affects transport between Kroonstad and Bloemfontein. It will perhaps be just as well for the Minister to make a statement here to indicate what his policy is, more or less, so that the country and the nation will know what is happening. The public are buying land and plots at certain points with an eye on the big extensions that are going to take place there, and if the Minister will make a frank statement on the position it will be of material assistance.

I feel tha†* I would be neglecting my duty if I did not associate myself with the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) and other hon. members from the Rand who asked for the railway line through the northern suburbs of Johannesburg via Alexandra and on to Pretoria. It is not a case of an enquiry being instituted to ascertain whether such a line would pay. It is one of the railways that would be an investment for the South African Railways. There are other parts of the country that of course need railways, and I am not competing with any member who has broached this subject in the interests of his constituency. I am not mentioning this matter in the interests of my constituency. On the contrary, that railway line wouíd not pass through my constituency, so I can say that I am not pleading for my constituency but I am pleading for the interests of the northern suburbs of Johannesburg. Those northern suburbs of Johannesburg represent 200,000 people. That is equivalent to the whole population of Durban, and Alexandra Township in which 60,000 natives reside has brought up many difficulties in the past. The complaint is that they have to pay too much of their wages towards the costs of transport. The hon. member for Hospital made the remark that it might lead to a sort of civil war, and that raised a laugh. But I want to remind the House of what happened a year ago in that part of Johannesburg. There was almost a civil war. This railway which is advocated by various members from the Rand will serve places from Braamfontein (where it could pick up a good deal of the Rand’s traffic to Pretoria) and from Braamfontein it would go through Parktown, Melville, Ferndale, Craighall, Lower Houghton, Waverley, Bramley, Alexandra Township and so on to Pretoria. Johannesburg is and will remain the hub of South Africa. If a railway is built it will be an investment, and the Minister ought to give this serious consideration before he refuses to grant that line. I am very sorry to have to do it, but on this occasion I have to associate myself with what has been stated by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring).

I am not opposed to the Bill the Minister has introduced authorising the construction of a double line between Kensington and Bellville station. But what I am surprised at is the terrific cost connected with that line, seeing that it is only 10 miles in length. If we take the costs involved in the building of a railway line a few years ago it was about £7,000 a mile. But from the information we have received this morning the building of this line will cost us about £65,000 a mile: We should like to know, and the Minister should give us an explanation in connection with the enormous costs involved in the building of this railway line on the Cape Flats, where it is very level, according to my information. I fear that if events are going to take this turn and we are going to pay such a frightful amount for the building of a mile of railway line, the railways will lose their whole profit for the twelve months on this short section of ten miles. Then you have the important railway lines about which hon. members have been asking Questions in this House, and it appears to me that the Railway Administration will not be able to build any further lines if the costs are so high. Then I want to know if those tremendous costs are due to subways or bridges that have to be built over the line. This cost is apart from the purchase price of the land on which the rails must be laid. Then I want to turn to another item, and it is the most important railway of all—I think it is just as important as this line that the Minister intends to build. A few years ago it was brought under the notice of the Minister of Railways, and I am quite convinced that he will remember it. I am referring to the line from Piet Retief to Pongola and from there to Gollel. I am convinced that it will be one of the most payable lines in the country. If we take just half the amount that has been spent here the line can be built, and it will be much more profitable than this line. The cost will certainly not run into £65,000 a mile, and I hope that the Minister will give attention to that. The material cannot make all the difference in expenditure either. I really hope that the Minister will give us a short explanation of the reasons for the costs in this case being so high.

I want to express my pleasure at the Minister of Railways now having changed his mind. I understood that the policy of the railways was not to build any new lines unless they were very necessary and payable. Now I notice that the Minister intends to build this line that will not be a financial asset but will simply facilitate the handling of the traffic. The Minister has of course come to the conclusion that the construction of railway lines is urgently necessary. Twice during this Session I have referred to the need for railway connections in my constituency, and I want to refer to that again. In a young country such as this it is necessary that railways should still be built. One member after the other has pleaded in this House today for new railway links or new railway lines. That proves my argument that there are still railways that have to be built. The principal or one of the principal is the railway line that should be built between Lichtenburg and Mafeking. It should have been built 30 years ago. Thirty years ago when the line was opened, the person who carried out the ceremony stated that the line would only temporarily be a branch line, and that the object was to connect it with the main line between Cape Town and Bulawayo and in that way get a connection with the North. It has been repeatedly and emphatically emphasised that this connection is necessary. In recent years we have expandéd considerably in regard to the production of mealies. The Western Transvaal has in the last three years become the largest mealie-producing part of our country. We have a great need of grain elevators and we cannot get those grain elevators if we are not connected with the main line; that is necessary before we can obtain the grain elevators from the Department of Agriculture. Another reason why I advocate the building of this line is that on the platteland we are anxious to encourage the development of industries, but railway communications are necessary for that. At Lichtenburg we have a wonderful opening for a cement factory. According to the statements of the experts the lime there contains 75 per cent. cement. There is a big opening for a cement factory provided we have a railway connection. A few weeks ago I put a question to the Minister of Transport as to whether he was going to construct this railway, and he then said “no”. I am glad that the Minister has now changed his mind, because it is essential that he should review this decision and build this line. We require it very badly. When I was last in my constituency I told the people what the decision of the Minister was, and they told me that I should just carry on and bring the matter again before the attention of the Miniser, and I am glad that the Minister has now apparently changed his mind.

I too feel that it is necessary that the Minister should clarify the position in regard to the reasons why this little line works out so expensively. Is it necessary to spend so much money on these nine miles of railway? We can understand that the line is needed, but would it not be much cheaper to lay an additional track alongside the present one? Why should it cost so much? The Minister has stated that the line will not traverse an area that has been closely built up. Why must so much money be spent on this district? I would further associate myself with what previous speakers have stated, that the time has arrived when the Minister should extend those railways that at present finish at a dead-end. I think it should be the settled policy of the Minister to extend all these railways where the terminus is a dead-end, so that they may be linked up with other sections of the railway, thereby shortening the mileage that the traffic has to be carried. I have in mind one concrete case in my constituency, where we have such a dead-end railway, namely at Bultfontein. When the line is extended to the south to link up somewhere with the railway in the south, it could easily touch at Soutpan which produces most of the salt in the Free State. We know how critical the position was a few months ago in our country as the result of a shortage of salt. If the railway line is built it will greatly facilitate the provision of salt. It will be easier to distribute. Moreover, the Minister would also be developing those parts agriculturally. Thousands of morgen of land are situated there which have not been worked at all because there has been no railway connection. Those parts could produce a great quantity of maize, and consequently I feel that when the Minister is providing railway extensions he should start at Bultfontein, because it is of so much importance. I would like again to express my gratitude to the Minister for having promised to send the Railway Board to institute an enquiry in connection with another proposed railway line, Maquassi-Hertzogville-Kimberley. I should like to know from the Minister when he is going to send the Railway Board. The people would like to know because to them this is a matter of actual importance. I feel I would be failing in my duty if I did not draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the time has arrived to make plans for the construction of a railway to the new goldfields in the Free State around Odendaalsrust. Here we have a case where the Minister is building a railway Jine that is not even nine miles in length, and it is costing the country round about £750,000. The goldfields in the Free State are going to be of exceptionally great importance and devolpments are going to take place rapidly once they start. If the Minister is going to wait until the ground is bought up by private persons, and until it has been divided into erven, he will possibly find himself in the same position as he is in today in Cape Town. Today he can build a railway line there at a comparatively low cost because the land has not yet been cut up into plots and holdings, but in Cape Town a stretch of nine miles is costing him £750,000, and as a result of the development that is going to occur in those parts it may perhaps be much more. The chairman of the J.C.I. Gold Mining Company stated at the last annual general meeting that at Odendaalsrust the boreholes had revealed four reefs and that the analysis of two of them indicated 261 inch-dwt and the other 444 inch-dwt.

We are not discussing the gold mines now.

I only want to allude to the importance of the gold mines and to state that they will have the sequel that within a short period there will be a large town there, and then the land will be so expensive that, should the Minister have to exproporiate, the line would cost even more than it is costing today in the Cape. The Minister should not wait until the development has gone ahead, because then it will cost him four or five times as much to build the line as it would today. I shall be glad if the Minister will inform us what his intentions are in connection with the building of a railway line in those areas in the Free State where development is occurring in the goldfields.

As this debate has developed into a plea for new railway construction I feel I would be failing in my duty if I did not draw the attention of the Minister to the importance of the construction of a line between Port Elizabeth and East London along the coast. At present it takes as long to travel from Port Elizabeth to East London by rail as the journey from Cape Town to Johannesburg. This is a very rich area of country with a rainfall averaging about 25 inches a year, the soil is fertile, and the railway bus system today cannot move the products of that area to the markets. The milk supplied to Port Elizabeth is all conveyed by railway bus transport, and it has developed to such an extent that it is now being carried out uneconomically. I do not wish to detain the House, but I would like to stress that if there is any line that justifies development or construction it is a line along the coast from Port Elizabeth to East London. It would be a line of great scenic beauty, because it will run in sight of the sea waves the whole distance. I think that is something unique in South Africa. I support the Minister in this Bill he has introduced. We people who live here during the Session have had evidence of the enormous traffic that is moved by our electric railways here, and I feel it is absolutely essential that this double line should be constructed. I regret that Johannesburg and Pretoria have put up a counterclaim that a new line should be built between Johannesburg and Pretoria. I do not think it is right that when one area receives necessary consideration in the way of railway development that other areas, or their representatives in Parliament, should immediately press for similar claims.

I appear to have quite unwittingly started what I might term an S.O.S. debate today. Following the example of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) many other members have felt that unless they could put in some claim for a railway line they would not save their seats. This has essentially been a “Save our Seats” debate. I am sorry, for all those gentlemen who gave us so generously of their eloquence, demanding railway lines, all of which have been asked from me at least a dozen times before, because it is not any part of my intention to deal with one of them. This Bill has nothing whatever to do with any railway line other than the railway line between Kensington and Bellville. The hon. member for Hospital asked me if I would accept an amendment, and he was ably supported by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring). The hon. member for Hospital has, I understand, some reputation as an authority on procedure in the House; I have seen that stated in the press. But the hon. member, if he is such an authority, must have known quite well that it is not competent for me to accept such an amendment. If I did accept it you, Mr. Speaker, would rule me out of order, and consequently it is rather surprising that he should even have made the suggestion. It is quite competent to discuss other railway lines on the second reading debate of this Bill, but it is not competent in Committee, to move a single amendment, as any hon. member knows.

It is competent for you to tell us what you are going to do in the near future.

I have already told the hon. member the position in regard to the Krugersdorp line he is interested in. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) asked me to give reasons for the high cost of this railway line, and I think the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W. van Niekerk) also referred to that. I would like to explain that the £238,000 permanent way charge, also includes £125,000 for the overhead equipment. This is not an ordinary line, it is an electrified line, and the electrical overhead equipment, as the hon. member knows, is fairly expensive. So £125,000 has to be deducted from that to get the actual cost of the line. It will be the heaviest type of line and the cost is not unduly heavy, having regard to the work that has to be done in connection with road bridges. I want to emphasise that every crossing of a road on this line is being done by a bridge. We are not having a single level crossing. It is true that where railways and roads run across one another and we want to improve them, we contribute jointly as between the municipality and the railways in regard to the cost of the bridge required. That is true, but it is not the case here. The reason is this. If somebody brings a new road across our railway line we do not contribute towards the cost of the bridge, or if we bring a railway line across a road already in existence we bear the whole cost. It is only a mutual business when we deal with eliminating an existing level crossing. So we have to find the cost of all the bridges in this particular case. In regard to the question of land, we have not expropriated any land worth speaking about, and it is very difficult for the Minister of Railways to start buying up land before he has authority from Parliament. But we can expropriate it, and it will be only a fraction of the cost that would be incurred in the expropriation of land that would be required to increase the number of tracks where the present line runs through. This is a much cheaper proposition than attempting to put in additional tracks along the existing line which in any case would largely defeat the object, namely to keep through traffic clear of the intermediate traffic, to keep it clear of points and crossings, and to keep the yards clear of unnecessary traffic. The hon. member has had a long enough acquaintance with the railways to know that when it becomes a question of paying for the land the railways can be relied upon to drive as hard a bargain as possible. I do not think there were any other specific points.

I referred to the rise in cost of land for housing purposes.

That will inevitably happen, of course. Our line going through that area which now is very sparsely populated will undoubtedly bring population in its train. I think it is certain the area will develop in a way it has not done hitherto, and the cost will go up, but I hope by that time we shall have all the land we need, and we shall take land for all the possible stations so that we may be prepared for subsequent developments. In regard to the hon. member for Hospital. I am glad to find he is now so strongly impressed with the need of railway expansion in Johannesburg. I have been trying to get Johannesburg to agree to the necessity of a railway station for two years, the railway station being the bottleneck for all railway traffic, and until we get a proper station we cannot build the line to Pretoria, because we cannot handle the traffic. And the hon. member has not been very vocal in regard to taking over the Wanderers, but I am glad to know he will be prepared to let me have the Wanderers and everything else, having regard to what the future of railway traffic in Johannesburg is going to be. The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) raised the question of Bellville station. This station was built in 1938, but it is going to be extended and remodelled in connection with these alterations. Vasco and Parow do not come into this particular railway line, but Vasco has £3,000 to be spent on it in the current estimates. I have said that I would not deal with any of the new railway lines that hon. members were asking for, and with these few remarks I beg to move the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House to resolve itself into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill to be read a third time on 10th April.

When this debate was adjourned last week I was replying to certain observations made by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) in connection with the Bretton Woods conference. May I return to one point that I have already dealt with. The hon. member asked why the Minister tried to keep the whole matter of the monetary conference so much in the dark, why a veil of secrecy was maintained over it, and he said that an instruction was given to the Press not to mention the sending of the two persons, Dr. de Kock and Dr. Holloway. I think there is a misunderstanding. I then told the hon. member that I had given no such instruction. That is correct. But I find that as a matter of fact before the departure of these two people mention was made of the fact; and also at the time of the conference several reports from America in connection with the conference were published in our Press. I think, therefore, there has been a misunderstanding. The hon. member must have been thinking about the previous conference. Reference was made in the Press to this conference, and I positively gave no instructions to keep it secret. Now the hon. member spoke about this subject being studied by the House. I have already told him that there is not the slightest intention to make South Africa take this important step blindfolded. I gave him the assurance and I also want to give it to the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) that we as a government are in no way committed in connection with this matter, and that no decision will be taken without consultation with Parliament. But I also stated, and I want to repeat, it is difficult usefully to discuss this matter here before we know what the attitude of the United States will be. If the United States of America backs out, the whole business collapses. Moreover, there is the possibility that the United States may propose amendments. No decision has yet been taken in Washington on the matter. For that reason I have deferred an announcement, and for that reason I think a discussion will still be premature. I think it would be well, however, if in the meantime we can arrange an informal discussion of the matter by members of the various parties who are interested. I will attend it, and ask Dr. de Kock to come from Pretoria to take part in such an informal discussion. I shall be pleased to arrange such a discussion. I think it will be the best way to be helpful to hon. members in studying the matter, so that when it is formally presented to the House for discussion they will be fully conversant with it. The hon. member touched specially on two points in connection with the draft agreement of Bretton Woods. In the first place he referred to the effect it would have on gold. The hon. member for Ceres rightly said, if I heard him correctly, that the agreement entails a considerable improvement of the position in the future. It does not mean that we revert to the old gold standard. The nations of the world are not prepared to revert to the old gold standard. But it does signify a great improvement in the position compared with what it was after the elimination of the international gold standard. As far as I am concerned I have frequently stated that in my opinion the position of gold was never seriously endangered. I could never see how there could be found an alternative for gold as an international standard of value, and Bretton Woods admitted and confirmed this. The nations are not prepared to go back to the old gold standard with all its rigidity and inflexibility, but at Bretton Woods the conception of gold as a standard of value was accepted as fundamental. Thus the hon. member is right when he says the Bretton Woods agreement, and what occurred there, has actually strengthened the position of gold. The second point that the hon. member for George mentioned was the effect of the agreement, if it is generally accepted, on our primary and secondary industries. He rightly said that if South Africa participates in such a fund it will be conceding certain points. He referred to what appears on page 213 of the discussion of the matter by Dr. Holloway. A few points were actually mentioned there, but only two are really important in this connection, namely (1) that it is undertaken not “to engage in discriminatory currency arrangements”, and (2) not to depreciate our currency except according to the rules of the fund. This of course means that we are binding ourselves to act in accordance with the rules of the fund on these two matters, but I do not think that will entail, to use the words of my friend that our right to protect our industries against murderous competition will have to be surrendered. It cannot have that effect. We shall not concede more than other nations who are members of the fund will concede. It will even bestow a certain measure of protection against a certain type of competition under which in the old days, for example, we had to suffer, and I believe thus that in the general interest, even from the viewpoint of our primary and secondary industries it will be a good thing if the fund is instituted, even with the limitations attached to it. Indeed we should not forget that the revival in international trade, which is the object of these proposals, will not be detrimental to South Africa, but to its advantage; and I hope consequently that we shall be prepared to view the matter from that angle. May I add, to remove any possible misunderstanding, that the fund as proposed has really nothing to do with trade restrictions—it deals only with the possible restrictions on payments for goods already sold. It does not, for example restrict our protection policy; it only deals with the payment aspect of the matter. But I return to what I said at the beginning: There is no question of a blindfolded South Africa accepting an agreement. We are not bound today, and we shall not be bound before Parliament is consulted, and there is full opportunity for discussion. I believe that the time for a thorough discussion has not yet arrived, but I am wholly prepared to make arrangements for the study of the subject in the meantime, and I hope that on the present occasion we shall not go too deeply into the details of the matter. Every opportunity will be granted for that.

The Minister’s policy in regard to the payment of large subsidies towards the production of fruit is a matter of considerable concern to the public, who are the principal consumers of the fruit produced, that is both the deciduous and citrus varieties.

I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss the matter under this vote. It has nothing to do with the Minister of Finance.

May I suggest I have tried in vain to ascertain from the Minister of Agriculture the conditions on which these subsidies are paid, and what they aim at securing to the consumer. I have utterly failed to obtain any intelligible statement from him. The Minister of Finance is obviously the Minister who authorises the issue of these funds.

I authorise all expenditure, but you cannot discuss all items on my vote.

But this is extraordinary expenditure intended for certain purposes, and if it fails in that specific purpose the Minister is the only authority ….

I regret I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss that matter under the present vote. The hon. member will have an opportunity of discussing the matter under “Agriculture”:

I shall not have an opportunity of discussing the matter with the responsible Minister. The Minister of Agriculture, to my mind, simply confesses his irresponsibility in these matters.

No.

I want to deal with another matter altogether the question of war pensions, and I make no apology for mentioning it. I want to draw attention to the fact that a departmental committee appointed last year has not reported on the questions that were referred to that committee of enquiry, and there is considerable anxiety among the persons concerned as to the recommendations to be made by that committee. I may say that the notices that were issued of the sittings of the committee were to my mind somewhat disappointing. I drew the attention of the committee to that at the sitting they held in Pietermaritzburg. The notice inviting the witnesses was so worded that it would appear that the administration of the Act was the matter that the commission had primarily to consider, and I am not only speaking of my own experience. I telephoned the B.E.S.L. in Durban to find out whether its scope was limited to what was said in the Press. They confirmed my impression it was so, and unless persons were prepared to go there ready to criticise the administration they might be restricted ….

Order, order! I must draw the hon. member’s attention to the vote on pensions, Vote No. 8 (page 35), heading E, sub-heading (iii), where specific provision is made for War Pensions. I think it would be bettter if the hon. member discussed this matter under that vote.

I have already had a discussion with you on this matter, and I understood it was agreed I should be entitled to avail myself of the 30 minute privilege in dealing with the policy of the Minister in relation to pensions.

I think the hon. member should raise it under Vote No. 8; the 30 minutes will be allotted. I think it would be better if the hon. member waited until this vote was reached.

I have very little time, and I have to catch a train; it would be most inconvenient. I shall probably be absent when the vote comes up.

I regret very much I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss it now.

This is contrary to what you have already assured me. It is inexplicable. I then shall deal with other aspects of the Ministér’s Department, in regard to matters falling under his Department. I must confess in my 25 years’ experience in this House I have never received similar treatment from any Chairman who has occupied the Chair.

That is a reflection on the Chair and the hon. member must withdraw it.

I regret I am unable to withdraw it, I would rather withdraw from the House.

The hon. member must withdraw from the House.

Certainly, with pleasure.

Whereupon Mr. Marwick withdrew.

I wish briefly to touch on the question of the Bretton Woods Conference that has been referred to by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and the reply given thereto by the hon. Minister. The Minister has, I think very clearly informed the House that he is prepared, he is anxious that there should be the fullest opportunity for discussing the matter and for dealing with it in such a way that before the agreement comes into effect this House will have the opportunity of expressing its views on the subject. But, Sir, there are two points which I want to put to the Minister on which I do not think he has satisfied us. The Bretton Woods Agreement is a very complicated matter. There are great differences of opinion already on the merits or demerits of the proposed agreement. On the one hand various debtor countries are concerned about the arrangement proposed under the agreement. On the other hand there is a considerable feeling of nervousness because in terms of the agreement, the U.S.A. will be the principal contributor both to the monetary fund and to the international bank, and both these organisations will function from the United States. There is a feeling of nervousness that not only does that mean, in effect, that the United States will have the predominant influence on international financial and economic policy, but as a consequence the financial capital of the world will be transferred from London to the United States. That is raising considerable discussion at present. Then there is a further aspect of the matter which requires consideration. Although governments and parliaments will have an opportunity of deciding whether they agree to this provisional agreement—because a provisional agreement has been signed at Bretton Woods —or whether they want to submit amendments, the main issue we are faced with is this, and it is not sufficient for the Minister —and I think on consideration he will agree —to suggest that we are concerned merely with the question whether the United States will finally agree to this or not. In terms of the draft agreement it is open to any government which was a party to that agreement to decide whether it will confirm it or not. I quite realise that if a small country which is contributing, say, £1,000,000 to the fund fails to agree, the position will not really be affected, while if the United States fails to confirm the agreement we may be faced with the same position as after the last war, when the United States did not join the League of Nations, and we may have not only industrial trouble, but also international troubles and differences resulting in another world war. I do not think that we can take up the attitude of saying that until we know whether the United States agrees and confirms the arrangement made at Bretton Woods we should do nothing. I think not merely the governments but the parliaments of the countries which were represented at Bretton Woods should have the fullest opportunity of discussing the matter, the merits and the demerits, and deciding to what extent that arrangement is likely to be beneficial or detrimental to the country concerned. I agree with the Minister that from the point of view of our being a gold-producing country the arrangement which has been made provisionally is one which is likely to be to our advantage because it is almost unthinkable that the United States with its twenty thousand million dollars of gold available, and the Soviet Union, which is probably today as great a gold-producing country as the Union, will be parties to an arrangement which will disturb the position of gold. So that from that point of view the position may be advantageous to us. But from the point of view of international commerce it is difficult to decide without further consideration whether we may be placed in the same position as other countries of being prejudiced by such an arrangement. But all these difficulties are being discussed and require the most careful and fullest consideration, We have been very well represented. At Bretton Woods there were technical representatives of 44 countries. I think it is correct to say that we, in the persons of Dr. Holloway and Dr. De Kock ….

And Dr. Gie, our representative there.

…. have been very adequately represented there. But because of that I think we should do at least what Australia has done and what I have no doubt other countries have done, and that is have a report submitted to the Government by Dr. Holloway; a definite report not only of what took place, but of our representatives’ opinions as to whether that agreement is likely to be advantageous to the Union or not, and that such a report should be placed on the Table of the House, just as is was placed on the Table of the House in Australia; and perhaps the Minister should go further. He spoke of informal discussions with Dr. Holloway. I think the Minister should go further and definitely consider a proposal of placing that report on the Table of the House and referring it for consideration to the Public Accounts Committee, so that we can take some evidence in connection with the matter and report to the House, on the subject, and when Parliament comes to deal with the matter it will be ån informed Parliament and not merely a Parliament which has before it a complicated document which it has not had an opportunity of studying and considering. I hope the Minister will consider the question seriously of having a report submitted to this House and having it referred to the Public Accounts Committee as soon as possible. I do not think there need be much delay because I am sure that Dr. Holloway and his colleagues could submit a report to this House very soon, and it could then be considered by the Public Accounts Committee.

We heartily welcome the announcement by the Minister of Finance that he will grant an opportunity to members on both sides of the House to have informal discussions with the two persons who were sent by the Union of South Africa to Bretton Woods. But I should like to give my cordial support to what the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has stated. It is a view that I have expressed on a previous occasion, and I am glad that the hon. member also takes up that standpoint. The Minister’s statement does not go far enough. We have asked that the Minister should be prepared to issue a White Paper in which the text of the Bretton Woods agreement is published, and together with the text explanatory memoranda from Dr. Holloway and Dr. De Kock in connection with that agreement. Simultaneous with laying that White Paper on the Table it will be useful if the Minister also proposes that the White Paper should be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and that Select Committee would then have the right to deal with the White Paper. Then possibly we may not only require Dr. Holloway and Dr. De Kock to appear before us, but as I have stated also representatives of the gold mining industry and representatives of trade and industry who have studied this matter and who may be able to throw further light on it. Too much time should not be occupied in that. The Minister’s argument that it serves no purpose to publish the text at present, in view of the fact that America can modify the resolution, and what America decides we have to accept with good grace, does not in my opinion hold good. We want to know what was decided at Bretton Woods. We want to know how the decisions of Bretton Woods are going to affect our gold industry, trade and industry, and farming in South Africa, and if America proposes alterations in the Bretton Woods decisions we shall be in a better position to appreciate the value of the alterations that America proposes. Then I should be glad if the Minister would give us the assurance that the Government during the recess will not simply accept the Bretton Woods resolutions whether as they at present stand or in a modified form, and then by way of Supplementary Estimates grant Parliament an opportunity to discuss the matter. We desire that assurance from the Minister that we will not be confronted by him with a fait accompli.

I have already given that.

We did not understand that.

I stated that we would not accept the resolutions without consultation with Parliament.

I have stated that I hope the Minister will not follow the precedent of Unrra. The American Congress was asked to approve the Unrra resolution by a resolution of both Houses. In Canada a special appropriation Bill was introduced to approve the financial obligations that the Government assumed under Unrra. We desire that, if the Government is asked to assume the financial responsibilities connected with Bretton Woods, it will come to us by way of a special Appropriation Bill wherein we shall be asked to approve the financial obligations. Assume that the moneys we shall have to contribute to the Fund and to the Bank amount to £50,000,000. In the last resort our financial obligations may amount to that sum; the responsibilities that South Africa will assume. This is South Africa’s money we are spending, not in South Africa but outside South Africa. We shall be taking that £50,000,000 of public money and we will be entrusting it to an organisation in connection with which we have very little say, and we desire that when the Minister asks Parliament for its approval he will do that in the form of a special Appropriation Bill, so that Parliament will have ample opportunity to discuss its implications in the various stages. It is our duty to obtain that assurance from the Minister, that the Government will not simply accept the resolution and come along to Parliament for approval by way of a Supplementary Estimate. I should like the Minister to take into consideration presenting to the House a White Paper with the complete text and at the same time appending to it explanatory memoranda in which Dr. Holloway will explain the implications of the agreement for South Africa and Dr. de Kock the implications of the Bank. It can then be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. That is the one body in this House that deals with all financial measures. It is true that there are individuals in this House who are also interested and who do not serve on that Select Committee. But it is only when such a matter is referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts that that committee will have the right to examine Dr. de Kock and Dr. Holloway fully, and also to summon other witnesses whom they may deem necessary to call. We especially desire that the Minister should undertake to bring the matter before us in the form of a special Appropriation Bill when we have to make our decision.

Mr. Chairman, I too, would like to deal with the Bretton Woods plan for an international monetary fund. The hon. Minister in his reply to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) stated, in effect, that the attitude of the United States Government would largely determine the fate of the plan. It appears, therefore, that any discussion of the merits of the plan at this stage, would be premature, and perhaps even academic. There is no doubt a certain realism in the Minister’s approach to the question, but nevertheless I feel that some discussion of the plan, even at this stage, would not be unprofitable. In the first place, it is not unreasonable to assume that this plan, or some modification of it, will ultimately have to be accepted by the United States. Only the other day Mr. Stettinius reminded the American people that economic nationalism is as impossible as political isolationism; and the economic history of the inter-war period should convince us that there is no hope for the future unless we can build institutions which will supersede the grotesque economic rivalries of the past and create economic stability for the world as a whole. And, in the second place, the United States Government, however powerful it may be, cannot in this matter exercise a dictatorship, for it is the very essence of the scheme that there must be free and willing collaboration between all the countries participating in the fund. Therefore, if the United States Government is anxious to secure the adoption of this plan or some modified plan, it must pay due deference to the views of other countries, amongst which, I submit, South Africa is not the least important. The hon. member for George said that the plan must be judged by its effects upon our gold-mining industry, our farming industry and our secondary industries. As far as gold is concerned, I think we have nothing to fear. As the Minister has pointed out, the plan does not put gold back on its former pedestal, but nevertheless assigns it an important place in the fund. The member-states will have to contribute part of their quota in gold, and they will have to fix the par value of their currencies in terms of gold. Now, in a sense, the member-countries will be tied to gold more firmly than ever before. Under the orthodox gold standard any country was free to go off gold by unilateral action, and it could depreciate its currency to a quite arbitrary extent. Under the present plan a member-state can appreciate or depreciate its currency only by 10 per cent., and further changes cannot be made without the approval of the fund. There is one provision, however, which at first sight seems unfavourable from our point of view. The fund, as a whole, will have the power to counteract long-term inflationary or deflationary tendencies by lowering or raising the price of gold. Now, this seems to place us in a dilemma. A rise in the price of gold would certainly not displease us, but a fall in the price of gold may disturb us very considerably. But I think that we have a safeguard in the fact that the gold acquired by the fund will stand in its books at a certain value, and any reduction in this value would involve the fund in a loss which it would probably be unwilling to incur; and I think, on the whole, that that would be an effective safeguard. As far as farming and secondary industries are concerned, it seems to me that we shall not be able to afford them a high degree of protection under this plan. Whether in the long run this will be a good thing or a bad thing for South Africa, whether we are prepared to adjust our agriculture and industry to suit the situation, are important questions which will have to be debated and decided upon. At the present stage I do not propose to express an opinion either way. Ät the present moment my purpose is merely to define the issue. What we have to bear in mind is that we cannot separate currency policy from tariffs and other forms of protection. The fund can never operate successfully if we are going to return to such devices as high tariffs, import quotas and permits, bilateral trade agreements, things which in the past impeded the free flow of goods and services from one country to another. These devices were used to correct an unbalanced exchange position and were the only alternatives to deflation with all its disastrous effects on the domestic economy. It seems to me that the international monetary fund must be conceived as part of a wider plan for international co-operation over the whole economic field. Nations will have to co-ordinate their financial and economic policies. It seems to me indeed, that nations will have to surrender some degree of their sovereignty in the economic sphere. This raises very important questions. Can South Africa afford to stand aside from such a plan? Will nations be prepared to surrender their freedom of action in matters which they may deem to be of vital importance to their internal economy? Will Governments be able to resist the power exerted by domestic pressure groups? If, despite all the bitter lessons of the past, nations are not yet ready for such a degree of co-operation, then the whole plan can be dismissed as Utopian. But if, on the other hand, they are ready to accept the full implications of the plan, it may well become the most powerful single factor for the establishment of some kind of new world order. Mr. Chairman, I think the House would be grateful to the Minister if he would give us the benefit of his views on these vital and complex problems.

On a previous occasion I have referred to the provisions of the agreement itself and pointed out that a limited period is allowed for the joining of members to whom a quota has been allotted, namely between the 1st May and 31st December of this year. After that the joining of any member will occur on an entirely different basis. I assume that the Minister of Finance believes that the United States will come to a decision before the end of this year. But that is accompanied by the alternative that a decision should be taken after this House has adjourned. I trust that the Minister is not counting on our remaining here until the end of the year.

That depends on you.

Then on behalf of my Party I want to give the assurance that we will not welcome this. The Minister has given a promise that he will consult Parliament. I should, however, like to refer to Paragraph 20 (2) of the agreement, which prescribes that the decision to join the Fund must be accompanied by a special guarantee, which entails that Parliament will have to be consulted before the Union can join either during the present Session or during a special Session. I do not believe that this will present much difficulty, and that it may have to be done by way of a special Session. But then it is so much the more desirable that the Minister should utilise as much as possible of this Session to enable a study to be made of this matter. Accordingly, I feel doubtful about the standpoint of the Minister when he states that he will not consult this House before he knows what the decision of the United States will be. There is so much in this agreement to which really serious objection can be offered with justice, that we should give serious attention to the matter. We do not lose sight of the fact that there are advantages that we may derive from it as a gold-producing country, but there are very serious objections in connection with the super plan and the structure of the agreement, which can evoke serious criticism, and accordingly we shall be glad if the Minister can still see his way clear to consult Parliament this Session, and to lay the provisions of the agreement before us in good time, either by way of a special Select Committee or by way of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I shall have to leave that in his hands, although I feel that very wide interest has been disclosed in this matter. There are various aspects that should be enquired into. I have mentioned that there is much to condemn in the agreement. I realise that I am now speaking in a responsible place, and I do not want to make a statement here that will in any way raise doubt about our being ready to discuss the matter on its merits. Where the general opinion is, as the Minister has also clearly informed us, that world trade must be revived in this manner, we must not lose sight of the fact that Bretton Woods has unfortunately been overshadowed by Dumbarton Oaks. This produces certain aspects that I want to touch on briefly for consideration by the Minister. We had hoped that this would be a world organisation to promote world trade by means of this agreement, and that it would provide a new foundation for world peace. But we have unfortunately been completely disillusioned with the realisation that this is not the case. This is not a world organisation. One of the things that strikes me first is that not a single neutral country has been invited. There is a considerable number of countries which have remained neutral, and which had reached an advanced stage of industrial development and have in the past contributed an important share towards the development in the industrial sphere in the world. I mention Sweden as one and Argentine as another. The Argentine has played an important role amongst the states of South America. And then as a Dominion we feel it very much that Ireland was not invited as a neutral Dominion. This is not as was made out, a world organisation. It leaves us a little hesitant about the free play that economic consideration should have in the establishment of a sound economic foundation. The second aspect is the difficult provisions that are laid down in respect of any country that does not join before the end of the current year, and there I have especially in mind the linking up of the fund of belligerent countries or neutral countries who have not been invited. I am not appearing as an advocate for any country that is at present involved in the war, but I want to state strongly that if the purpose is to institute a world organisation for the promotion of trade to eliminate mutual friction provision should be made for the admission of all mercantile countries; then it should actually be a world organisation. At the moment no provision has been made for the admission of such countries. Provision, it is true, is made in the conditions of the bank to admit such countries later, but then 75 per cent. of the voting strength— not only of the members—must be in favour of admission. Now I want to ask the Minister this. The impression exists that here again you have the three big powers around each of whom a group of nations have ranged themselves, the three great powers with a group of satellites. I do not want to say more than this, but what surprises one somewhat is that in regard to the management of the fund provision is made for five permanent members. Five of the great nations will be present, that is nations contributing the biggest quota, but there is the remarkable fact in connection with the constitution that provision is made for two permanent representatives of the South American states, whose contributions in any case are smaller than those of Canada. That ought to receive our consideration. Not that we want to nurse a grievance over it, but we would like the world to understand that this aspect has not escaped our attention. In reference to the provisions that are of great significance to us, the determination of the parity of the currency is certainly of great interest. Whether we join or not it is going to be of big interest to us, as the parity of the currency of every country will have to be determined in terms of gold. In addition to that we have the dollar as a monetary medium, but the parity of currency must be fixed in terms of gold and it must be fixed on the basis on which it is 90 days before the fund comes into operation. This is unfortunately a very vague provision. The individual state will not have the choice of determining the value or parity of its currency, but this will actually happen ipso facto on the basis of the parity that it had 90 days before the commencement of the fund, and now the vital question arises whether under the present circumstances the Minister is satisfied that our present parity reflects a sound position so that it can serve as a basis for the future. The peace of the world depends on the fostering of international trade, and in the first place the assurance should exist that the parity will be based on the purchasing power of the various countries. Now I should like to know from the Minister whether he and the Government are merely going to accept the parity of the £ in terms of dollars as represented 90 days before the commencement of the fund, or whether, having regard to our sound gold position and strong purchasing power, he will consider our currency in conjunction with the ruling rate of exchange 90 days before the commencement of the fund.

In February last I put to the hon. Minister a comprehensive question in regard to the Bretton Woods monetary and banking plan. The Minister gave an answer that was very restrained and unsatisfying. In his reply he described the plan as a comprehensive scheme of international monetary reconstruction. That could be taken as a good general description. The statement, however, of the manager of the Chase National Bank of New York, Mr. Aldrich, in connection with the conference is important. In a, speech he gave at Chicago towards the end of last year, in describing the plan, he said that in England—and he was quoting the view of Sir John Anderson —the proposal of Bretton Woods is termed the opposite of the gold standard. In the United States it is called a further application of the gold standard. That brings us to more solid ground even if it does show there was a certain amount of dissenting thought at the conference. Our representatives at the conference were Dr. Holloway, Dr. de Kock and Dr. Gie. Dr. Holloway, as we all know, is one of the leading representatives of economic thought in this country. I have one criticism to make of him, if I may do so; he was one of the economists who in 1932 advised Mr. Havenga, Minister of Finance, to adhere to the gold standard. Dr. de Kock is Governor of the Reserve Bank. Dr. Gie is our Minister in U.S.A. Did our representatives at that conference go there with a predetermined policy to adhere to? That is an interesting point because in the same speech of Mr. Aldrich he used these words in connection with the American attitude—

I think it can be taken that the Bretton Woods policy is clearly a gold standard policy. What is the alternative to the gold standard? It is, of course, the sterling standard to which in 1933, particularly under our Currency and Exchanges Act, we adhered The old gold standard collapsed in 1931. Then it was that England established the sterling standard, and a very considerable group of countries, the British Commonwealth, Egypt, India, Japan, some of the Baltic States and the Scandinavian States adhered to the sterling group. It worked far more efficiently and more automatically than the gold standard, without formalities, without quotas, without any meetings. It lasted in effectiveness, up to 1936, when the tripartite monetary arrangement between England, the United States and France was concluded. That agreement was a modified form of the gold standard. All the available information goes to prove that the Bretton Woods policy is the policy of 1936, a revival of the tripartite policy. If that is so then in the words of Lord Keynes, it will exert a deflationist and contractionist influence over the whole world. This country had the experience in 1931 of that contractionist danger;, it has had also the experience of a very considerable economic revival under the sterling standard. I would like to ask, and in that waý support the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman), that the Minister give us his opinion as to the Final Act of Bretton Woods. Does it mean a return to the gold standard of 1925 or to the tripartite pact of 1936? If neither, what then is the policy? Does it mean that South Africa will persist in adhering to the sterling standard?. Now there is one very important aspect in connection with this question: Is South Africa now ready to decide on its international monetary policy? Can it do so before it has first decided on its trade policy? The Minister told us in the question I have referred to that the international stabilisation fund is not concerned with trade agreements but with foreign exchange. Now the implications of that are important. Has the Government decided on its international trade policy after the war? That matter should first be settled. What was done in 1925 was that we first fixed the monetary policy. We set a stabilised value to the £. Then we endeavoured to make our trade arrangements subserve the monetary policy, with the disaster that exports, in the case of Britain, were very greatly diminished on account of the over-valuation of the £. We cannot repeat that mistake after this war. I want to ask what steps the Government has taken up to now in regard to trade barriers, import quotas, and in regard to the monetary instability in this country today. Has the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Finance, between them, a policy to give to the House? If we adhere to an international monetary agreement without a fixed trade policy we are going to hand over South Africa to the international bankers as in 1925 and 1936, and we shall certainly go through a period of deflation and collapse. For that reason the House should be taken fully into the Government’s confidence even at this stage of the negotiations. We are a gold-producing country; our principal export is gold. That fact must determine the attitude, the policy, towards the gold standard and towards the Bretton Woods proposition. But we do not want a policy based on the 1925 policy, excluding of course the sterling period. That policy destroyed world trade; and the principal causes of that destructive influence are set out in the Bretton Woods document itself. These were the causes set out there; firstly, American tariffs; secondly, American gold policy; thirdly American export policy. I want to say we must be extremely careful that we do not align our monetary policy too closely with that of the United States. The position of South Africa must not be indefinite any longer. We are a sovereign State. We must make up our minds whether we want the Washington or the London conception of monetary policy; whether we want a disruptive and deflationary policy with the surplus exports of the United States flooding this country, or whether we want balanced exports and imports, visible and invisible. We have to decide’ whether we want a deflationary dollar; or an abundant and expansive pound, which will give our gold industry and our country, the prosperity it ensured for us after 1933. These issues should come before Parliament. The choice before us is between subservience and independence between mass unemployment and prosperity. Again I would appeal to the Minister to give us his views in connection with this important international question we are considering. We wasted many days last week in considering measures which we might well have postponed until after the peace. I trust that the Acting Prime Minister will from now on bring us back to the economic realities of South Africa on which the livelihood of our people depends.

I just want to get away for a moment from the high monetary policy of Bretton Woods and direct the attention of the Minister for a moment to the more distasteful monetary policy of the people who rule the black market in South Africa. As soon as any control or restrictions are called into being by a government, the immediate effect of it is a large measure of unlawful practices. That has also been the result of price fixation and of control measures in South Africa. The black market came into existence, which, according to information, has assumed fairly large and extensive proportions. I am afraid that if it goes on at this rate, we shall have a state of affairs in South Africa as was experienced in America where bootlegging became a great business in the country. As a result of the fact that the black market came into existence, the attempt which was made by the Government to fix prices, to exercise control, was frustrated to a large extent or to a considerable extent. One can hardly open a newspaper without reading of cases which appeared before the Court where persons were found guilty of black market activities. I take it that the Minister of Justice and his police are doing their best to put a stop to it, but my information is that it is taking place on a much greater scale than is indicated by the cases which are tried before the court. The point I want to touch upon is whether it is not possible, apart from police action, to restrict if not to put a stop to black market activities by the withdrawal on the part of the Minister of Finance of bank notes of higher denominations. I believe this matter was raised in the course of the Budget Debate, and the Minister stated in his reply to the debate that the number of notes of higher denomination was comparatively small and that in the circumstances he did not deem it necessary or desirable to take any steps in that direction. I then placed a question on the Order Paper and asked the Minister how many notes were in circulation. We need not take into account the 10s. notes and the £1 notes or even the £5 notes, because I agree with the Minister that it would cause a considerable amount of dislocation in the country if the £5 notes were called in. The Minister knows, and I think it is generally admitted, that the black market activities take place entirely in cash. According to the figures I obtained from the Minister it would seem that there are 5,500 notes of £100 denomination in circulation, representing £550,000. The £20 notes in circulation amount, to £402,000, and there are 339,300 £10 notes in circulation, representing än amount of £3,393,000, and the value of the £5 notes in circulation is £26,000,000. I am not asking that the £5 notes be called in. I notice that the Minister said that if he called up the banknote issues of £5 and higher denominations, it would involve a comparatively small amount, in comparison with the amount of tax evasion which is taking place, according to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside). If the Minister was correctly reported, tax evasion must be taking place on a tremendous scale, because according to his own figures a sum of £26,000,000 is in circulation in £5 notes only, and a sum of £3,393,000 in £10 notes, and together with the other it is approximately £34,000,000, and he says it is a comparatively small amount in comparison with the tax evasion. But let us pass on. If we take only the £10 notes and the £20 notes and the £100 notes, we get an amount of approximately £4,500,000. I realise that after a certain period they will possibly be able to evade it, but there is a strong public feeling that the calling in of the higher denominations will have a restrictive influence on the black market operations. With regard to the alleged dislocation, I do not think there will be any dislocation, because there are not many people who carry £100 or £20 notes or even £10 notes in their pockets in the ordinary course of events. The hon. Minister knows that the smaller wages are not paid in notes of such high denomination; the smaller wages are usually paid in £1 notes and £5 notes, and when it comes to higher wages, they are usually paid per cheque. With regard to business transactions, these transactions do not take place in cash; they usually take place by cheque. In actual fact, therefore, if the hon. Minister were to call in these notes, it would cause practically no difficulty. It would not cause the public any inconvenience. Since the general feeling is that not only black market operations but also tax evasion takes place by means of this cash—this “hot money”—I feel that in the Minister’s own interests too, since he is anxious to collect taxes, he ought to do something in that direction. I say therefore that it will not cause any inconvenience to the public and that there will be no dislocation of trade. I hope the hon. Minister will seriously consider the question of calling in these notes so that he can in that way at least restrict the black market operations.

I should like to say a few words about Bretton Woods in this regard: One would get the impression from the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and from other members of this Committee that we sent two officials to represent us in America and our Minister Plenipotentiary from Washington, and since the return of the two delegates to South Africa, thereafter nothing had been said about the conference, that nothing had been communicated to the public of South Africa, and very little to this House. I think in fairness to our two representatives, Dr. Holloway and Dr. De Kock, it should be said that they have done a good job of work in trying to tell the people of South Africa something about the conference and their part in that conference overseas. First of all, we had a report which appeared in the “South African Journal of Economics’’, where the two aspects of the Bretton Woods Conference were dealt with, namely, the international monetary fund, by Dr. Holloway, and the other aspect, the international bank and reconstruction development, by Dr. De Kock. Subsequently, I think because of the representations of people interested in this most important question as far as South Africa is concerned, a separate publication was issued, and I should think that the hon. member for George has studied this. I take it that most members of the House, who are interested in a problem of this kind have studied it, namely, the “United Nations’ Monetary and Financial Conference held at New Hampshire”. So far as the White Paper is concerned, it seems to me that in regard to the objective study of this conference, anything the White Päper can tell us is already told in this publication, and in this circumstance, we have the information available which the hon. member for George has asked should be made available to us. As the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I was rather anxious that this paper should be put on the Table of this House.

That is an unofficial document.

The fact is that we have the information contained here that the hon. member for George had been asking for, and from that point of view there is no question of secrecy; there is no question of our being kept in the dark. People who are interested have the information available here. But to proceed, I wished that this should be made an official document, and it was pointed out to me that in that case it had to be translated, and there are many technical terms in this document so it is a difficult document to translate. That would mean very considerable delay. I only mention this because I feel that the representatives we sent overseas, in coming back here and publishing this work, have really done a very great service to the country and as far as they are concerned, they have fully carried out their duties in giving this information to Parliament and to the country generally. This matter has never been referred to by one single speaker, and the impression created in this Committee is that there has been a veil of secrecy, that we have been told nothing about it, whereas this has been before the public of South Africa for a considerable time.

How do you obtain that brochure?

It was published, first of all, in the “South African Journal of Economics”, which has a very wide circulation, and then subsequently as a distinct publication and it is obtainable at the Central News Agency. I would like to say this to the Minister before he replies. This Committee is grateful to him for informing us that no decision will be taken without taking Parliament into its confidence. In other words, I take it that the decision taken will be a decision of this House. There is this difficulty that arises. One got the impression when the Minister was addressing us, that everything hung upon the decision of the United States of America. Presumably therefore—let us say that in a couple of months’ time the United States decide that they are going to be a party to this undertaking, and the House will not be in Sitting then we will have to quickly decide. Will the Minister tell us in his reply what is going to happen then, because as has been emphasised in this debate over and over again, those of us who give serious thought to matters of this kind, believe that the decision for or against is going to be as important to South Africa as the decision to stay on the gold standard or go off the gold standard, and one of the most important things with regard to us staying on gold, was that that decision was taken by the then Minister. The country was committed, so to speak, by the decision of one man, and I think that South Africa feels today that we do not want a repetition of that kind of thing, and I would like the Minister in his reply to tell us that in the event of the United States deciding when we are not in Session, and in the event of a very early decision being asked for from us, what steps he will take to take this House into his confidence?

This debate dealt more particularly with the question of Bretton Woods. But the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) raised a few points in connection with the black market. My hon. friend now finds himself in the position in which a Minister sometimes finds himself; in other words, he is not able to give his full attention. I sympathise with him. I too find myself in that position sometimes and then it is held against me by my hon. friend. I fully agree with my hon. friend that we should do everything in our power to oppose the black market traders, but it is not clear to me that the calling in of bank notes even of £10 notes and higher denominations will help very much. I assume my hon. friend is of the opinion that bank notes of £10 and higher should no longer be issued. Bank notes of £5 would then still be issued. While the people can get bank notes of £5, the fact that we call in bank notes of £10 will not restrict their activities very much. It would help if we called in £100 bank notes.

What about the £20 and £10 bank notes?

I doubt whether the calling in of £20 bank notes will restrict their activities very much. The calling up of £100 bank notes would, however, restrict their activities. The number of £20 bank notes are also restricted. As far as the £100 bank notes are concerned, it is true that there are 5,500 of these notes, but of that number only 1,500 are in the hands of the public. The rest are in the hands of the commercial banks, partly in the Union and partly in South-West Africa. There are only 1,500 in the hands of the public. That figure of 1,500 £100 bank notes in relation to the alleged scope of the black market operations, is, of course, very small, and I doubt very much whether the calling in of those £100 bank notes will really help us very much.

There is no black market money in Johannesburg today.

I am very pleased to hear that, but I am not quite convinced that that is the case. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) may have more information in connection with this matter than I.

It is a fact.

Well, I am very pleased to hear it. I doubt whether this means would help us very much. I once approached this matter more particularly from the point of view of tax evasion, because one can assume that people who are in possession of large quantities of £100 bank notes, are probably persons who evade taxation, and the fact therefore that we call in those £100 bank notes place them in this position, that either they cannot make use of the £100 bank notes or they have to pay them in, and in that case we may be able to discover who the people are. But in view of the fact that these people have to be given a certain amount of notice and in view of the fact that there are only 1,500 of these bank notes in circulation, it seems to me that these persons will make some sort of plan to distribute a large portion of those £100 bank notes amongst their friends, so that eventually no one will come forward with a large number.

But why should the man’s friend take it?

He will still have a reasonable time to get rid of them because we will have to give all these people a few days or a few weeks’ notice, and while a person comes forward with only a few £100 bank notes we cannot tell him that he is evading taxation. If some of these people cannot make some other plan, they will in all probability keep their £100 bank notes rather than practically hand themselves over to the revenue authorities. From that point of view therefore I cannot see that we will really achieve much by means of this measure which has been suggested. If it would help, I would only be too glad to give effect to it.

†The main discussion this afternoon has been in regard to Bretton Woods, and the draft agreement arrived at there. I think the real point that we are dealing with at this stage, is the point raised by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). Other members have followed up on the same lines. That is the question of the best procedure to be followed in this matter. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) seems to be in some doubt about this point, and I would repeat therefore that the Government is not bound at the present moment by any agreement come to at Bretton Woods, and the Government will not bind itself without reference to Parliament. That is quite definite and clear. I think we are all agreed on that. But I do consider that the time is not really ripe for a full discussion of all the implications of this matter. We have not yet got all the facts available. I think it is desirable that we should know, if it is at all possible before we come to a formal discussion of this matter, what the attitude of the United States of America is going to be. I think that has been the attitude so far of all the countries as well as ourselves, and I think it is very desirable that we should know what the position is in this regard, and to that extent we are not really ready for a discussion yet and if we can postpone the discussion for a while, it would be advantageous from that point of view. In the second place, the House is not yet sufficiently informed. We have had the statement by several hon. members that they want a further opportunity of considering this matter, by way of a Select Committee or of questioning the delegates, who went to Bretton Woods; in other words, the House does not consider itself sufficiently informed. I agree with the hon. member for Troyeville when he said it is desirable that we should have an informed House dealing with this matter, and I want to say that it is very desirable, if it is at all possible, that we should have a co-operative House dealing with this matter. I am very anxious that we should approach this matter in the spirit of co-operation. This debate on the question has, I think I can say, been free from any party considerations. I think hon. members have tried to approach the matter in an objective manner and I am sure when we go into it further, there will be the same general attitude. But I think it is desirable in order to ensure that there will be an informed House and a co-operaive House, that that further procedure should be followed in order to prepare for such a discussion as will finally take place. Before I come on to that aspect of the matter, I want to say this. The question has been asked as to what will happen if this House has to rise and we still have not yet got clarity in regard to the attitude of America. That, I think would be unfortunate, but again I say to the House, that the Government will not bind itself in this matter without reference to Parliament, and in that event I think the step that we shall probably take, will be to consult this House before it rises, to give an opportunity for a debate even though we have not yet got information before us in regard to America’s attitude. I think that would probably be the appropriate course to follow. In any case, we are certainly not going to commit the House to anything that the members have not had an opportunity of discussing. There is the other point of how to secure an informed House in dealing with this matter. I am glad that the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) has pointed out that there has been made available to hon. members the papers read by Dr. Holloway and Dr. de Kock to the Economic Society, and in reply to an interjection which was made, while the hon. member for Vasco was speaking, I would like to mention that when I replied to a question of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) in February, I then said that any hon. member who was interested, would be supplied with a copy. Any member therefore who noted my reply at the time, and who was interested could have got a copy. In addition, subsequently to that, copies have been made available of the actual draft agreement and certain hon. members have availed themselves of those copies. There have been certain opportunities for hon. members to acquaint themselves with the proposals now before the world. But I realise that it is not enough to have an informed House in dealing with this matter. If we are to be in a position to deal with this matter in an appropriate spirit and with an adequate amount of information, before the Session ends, I think we will have to act fairly expeditiously, and the suggestion I make, namely of informal discussion, was conceived with a view to such expenditious action. But I gather that certain hon. members want something more formal than that. Well, I want to help hon. members. As I have said, I want the co-operation of the House in dealing with this matter, and I would point out that the preparation of a White Paper on the lines of the suggestion Of the hon. members for George, its translation, its printing, its laying on the Table of the House, might take us rather longer than we would like. In order to expedite the procedure, I would suggest that we should in the first instance, lay on the Table of the House, a report of our delegates or some of them, and that that could then be referred to a Select Committee. The full text could then be made available at a slightly later stage. I am making this suggestion in order to save time, that in the first instance that report could be referred to a Select Committee. I do no know that I would commit myself at this stage, to the view that it should be the Public Accounts Committee. That is a matter on which I would like to consult the members of that Committee. They may have their hands full with other things. It may be desirable to have a special committee for that purpose. In any case, that Committee would have power to take evidence and consider the whole matter. In that way I think we would then have an informed House when the question comes before us, I think almost certainly before the end of the Session. In the meantime I am still of the view that the time is not really ripe yet for a discussion of all the various questions which are connected more or less directly with his Bretton Woods agreement. I have already said that the Bretton Woods agreement does not mean a return to the International gold standard. The nations of the world would not accept the old international gold standard with all its rigidity and all its in-elasticity, but the nations of the world have learned that they have suffered quite a lot from the fact that the international gold standard fell away, and that nothing in effect was put in its place. The sterling standard to which the hon. member for Durban (Berea) referred, never fully replaced it. All the Bretton Woods Agreement set out to achieve was some basis of international co-operation, some scheme of things which would make possible the settling of the balances without a formal gold standard, but in such a way that the nations would not be forced to all those various devices to which reference has been made in this debate. In other words, the idea was to get the basis of an international agreement in regard to these currency questions, not an international gold standard —that is not practical politics—but the problem of Bretton Woods was to find whether there was something in between which would enable a large measure of international co-operation to be secured. The issue that is going to be before us is simply an issue of whether, having studied this matter further, we think South Africa should participate in this international cooperation. That is the issue, and it is to that issue that I hope we shall address ourselves when the matter comes up for discussion again. Just one point in reply to the hon. member for George. I think he went rather too far in suggesting that after the agreement has been approved, we must still have a special appropriation Bill to vote the money. Of course, money will have to be voted in an appropriation Bill. But if I understood my hon. friend correctly to mean that we will have to have a Bill just for these appropriations, then I think he is going too far. I think he was thinking in terms of Unrra, but in this case the House will have approved beforehand by a resolution and then surely the appropriate course is to make provision in an ordinary appropriation Bill, when the House can consider it in all its stages. I hope my hon. friend will be satisfied with that. That I think covers the ground in regard to this matter. I would repeat that I am most anxious that we should approach this matter in a co-operative spirit and I should be happy to give whatever assistance I can, and my department will be similarly happy in order to secure the necessary co-operation in this matter.

Is this question not to be discussed at San Francisco?

No, it will not be discussed there, except very incidentally. The San Francisco conference has been called to discuss the Dumbarton Oaks agreement, and not this agreement.

I want to accept the suggestion of the hon. Minister not to say much more at this stage in regard to this subject. There are, however, three small points in regard to which I want to make a few remarks. The first is in reference to the suggestion of the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) that we do not sufficiently appreciate the assistance which we have received and are going to receive from our delegates to Breton Woods. I should like to express my own appreciation of the willingness of the Department and particularly of the Secretary for Finance fully to meet me at my request. I asked him for information and he gave it to me immediately. He withheld nothing from me, and we are grateful for the assistance which we received from the Department. If we failed to refer to it, it was not out of ungratefulness or lack of appreciation. I just want to put two questions in reference to this publication, and the first is in connection with Clause 11 of the concept agreement in regard to the allocation of funds. Clause 11, sub-clause 1, was not altogether clear to me when I gave my attention to it. It lays down the obligation of members of the fund towards non-members, and it goes further than the laying down of the obligation. It also lays down penal provisions. I do not want to anticipate any subsequent debate, but I should like to ask the Minister, if he also experiences difficulty in the interpretation of Clause 11, sub-clause 1, to get a statement from our representatives as to the implications. I briefly made a copy of the provisions of Section 1—

Secondly—

May I just add that sub-section 3 then lays down the penal provisions applicable to members who do not want to co-operate. But now the question arises of the freedom of a member to trade in its own interest with countries which are not members of the fund. The original members of the fund will be approximately 44, the majority of which will be small entities. One of these entities, for example is Liberia. I do not want to belittle other countries, but there are countries like Liberia and Salvadore. I have respect for small countries which want to be independent, but large numbers of countries remain outside the agreement. In the first place there are the belligerent countries and then there are numbers of neutral countries, like Sweden for example. South Africa has traded to a large extent with Sweden in the past, and since Sweden is not an original member of the agreement and, in terms of the provisions relating to the fund, may later experience difficulty in gaining admission to the fund, it is necessary for us to consider whether it means that member countries will not be allowed at all to trade with nonmembers, and if it is allowed, under what conditions? I should like to have a statemnt from the Minister in this connection, not necessarily now, but on a later occasion. I think he will agree with me that we cannot bind ourselves in advance to trade only with certain circles. Every nation must find a market for its products, and it usually finds the most advantageous market, and it prefers to buy in the most advantageous market. But I do not think we can bind ourselves in anticipation not to trade with non-members. Then just one more question in connection with the international bank. The bank has a large number of objects, and here too, those objects are all very fine. We want to promote world peace by eliminating inequality where there are necessitous circumstances, but those banking clauses contain a few unpleasant provisions. There are certain resolutions and those resolutions are contained in resolution 4 which deals with enemy assets, and without saying more, my interpretation of this resolution is that it is nothing less than one of the measures of persecution or vengeance which are going to be effected in anticipation.

Which resolution is that?

It is resolution No. 4. I may say that I did not find it in the publication which was published in South Africa. I got it in the White Paper which was laid before the Australian Parliament. Since one of the main objects of the bank is, in the first instance, not really to lend money itself to countries in need of loans, but only to guarantee the loans of private persons, since that is the intention and having regard to the implication of resolution 4, the question occurred to me whether there was any connection—I do not want to say obligation— for that reason I should like to know from the Minister to what extent membership of the one also means the acceptance of the other.

Do you mean membership of the bank?

No, membership of the fund.

No.

I cannot say that I am really satisfied with the Minister’s reply in regard to the question of calling in bank notes. I think he is unnecessarily hesitant in connection with this matter. May I draw the attention of the Minister to what recently happened in England? I do not know whether the Minister knows what happened there. In a recent edition—I think of the “Cape Argus”—the following appears—

Then the comment of “The Times” follows—

I think the Minister must admit that if it was deemed necessary in England to take such a step it is necessary in this country too. I think the considerations which the Minister mentioned today in his reply to my proposal, are also applicable there. I take it that a greater number of these notes are in circulation in England, but the considerations which he mentioned are also applicable there—how they can hand them over to their friends, etc.—and since it was deemed necessary in England to take such a step, I feel that it can also be done here. The hon. Minister confined himself to the £100 notes. He says there are not many £100 notes in circulation. But for my part I want to emphasise the £20 and also the £10 notes. £10 notes to the value of £3,000,000 are in circulation. With regard to the £20 notes, there are £50Q,000 in circulation. I say therefore that the Minister cannot leave the matter as it is, that he should make an effort to put a stop to this illegal trade and that he should follow the example of the British Government in that respect, since he follows it in other respects, and that he should make an effort to put a stop to these unlawful practices to a certain extent.

After the important questions which have been raised here, I want to say a few words in regard to a few other points, and put a few questions to the Minister. In the first place I want to raise the question of the salaries of the messengers under the Department of the Minister, but it also relates to the salaries of messengers in other departments. An amount of £433 is being placed on the estimates in respect of seven messengers, and we find that that works out to something like £5 per messenger per month. We are living in times of high costs of living, and I want to ask the Minister whether he thinks these people are able to pay their board and lodging out of that salary, and whether they will not be forced to live in hovels in order to make ends meet. I want to ask the Minister whether he does not think the time has arrived to pay them a little more? I notice throughout the estimates that there are certain people whose wages are very low in these difficult times. They have to do this unpleasant work in all sorts of weather, and they get a wage on which they cannot exist. Then I also notice that there is a controller of finance for the Defence Department under the Treasury Vote. I should like to know whether that official properly controls the accounts of the Defence Force, because the mistakes which are made in that department are legion. I shall be glad if the Minister will reply to these points. Then I should like to put a few questions to the Minister in connection with the Treasury Vote. The officials of the Treasury come into contact with Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people, and I should like to know whether they are all bilingual. I am anxious to have that information, because we hear such a great deal about equal language rights, that we must know both languages, and I think the Department of the Minister of Finance is one of the Departments which should set an example. I shall be glad therefore if the Minister will give us this information. Last year a very distasteful circular letter was sent out by the Minister of Finance, and I should like to put a few questions to him in that regard. This circular letter relates to the manner in which non-Europeans are to be addressed, and I should like to know from him how many temporary officials and how many permanent officials resigned as a result of that circular letter. I also want to know from the Minister whether he thinks it is desirable at this stage to send out such a circular letter which created trouble amongst the non-European population, and which resulted in the resignation of a large number of European officials? I do not want to enlarge on this question at the moment, because I know that the chairman will call me to order, but we know that Communists are making propaganda amongst the non-Europeans. Does the Minister not feel that it would have been better to hold this thing in abeyance until such time as there has been consultation, so that it would not have been necessary to throw Europeans on to the street? I shall be glad to hear from the Minister how many officials were thrown out of the service as a result of this circular letter, with the result that they had to seek employment with private institutions in order to make a living. I put these few questions so that we can get information from the Minister on these points.

The circular letter to which my hon. friend refers, was issued by the Pension Office. The number of persons who resigned is 19 temporary and two permanent officials. With regard to the messengers in my department, their salaries, just as in the case of other departments, are paid under the Public Service Act. Those salaries are subject to investigation by a Commission of Investigation under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Centlivres. My hon. friend must not assume that the amount which is indicated here opposite messengers is the full amount which they receive. Lower down on the Vote he will notice that provision is made for a cost of living allowance, from which they also get a share, as well as other allowances. The figure which is given higher up, represents only their substantive salaries.

What additional sum do they get? I suppose it is only a few shillings?

The chief messenger is on the scale £135 to £270. The junior messengers, the youngsters, start on £5 and they go up to £10. In addition to that they get a cost of living allowance.

I suppose that is very little.

I should think that a person getting £60 per annum, would get something like £20. I have not got the figures with me. It is a general Civil Service question, and it is not a matter for my department. These persons are on a salary scale which is laid down by the Public Service Commission and in addition to that they get the cost of living allowance. They get more therefore than is indicated here.

But that allowance is not part of their substantive salary. Are they on the permanent staff?

Yes, they get a fixed salary. They fall under the general division of the service. With regard to the Treasury Controller of Finance, in connection with the Defence Department, this is an arrangement which we made when we sent someone up north, in the first instance, to Kenya and Egypt, in connection with the control of finance. Subsequently another arrangement was made. Since we have the services of this person available in the event of a special investigation having to be made, we are leaving this item on the Vote so that we can make use of it when necessary. The actual control of Defence finance as in the case of other departments, is done mainly through the Auditor-General. As far as bilingualism is concerned, the general provisions of the Public Service Act are applicable, and I do not know whether there is anyone in my department—I do not know anyone in my department who falls under the Public Service Act and who is not bilingual.

Are they all bilingual?

I think all those who have permanent appointments are bilingual. There may be persons who occupy temporary posts who are not bilingual.

I should like to put a further question to the Minister, but I hope he will reply to the further aspects which we raised in connection with Bretton Woods, before the Vote goes through.

Yes, the hon. member put a question to me in regard to Clause 11 (1). He infers from that that the effect of it will be that members of the fund will bind themselves not to trade outside that circle.

I said that that was a possible interpretation.

This clause reads—

That does not mean that they may not trade with countries which are not members of the fund, but that they may not engage in certain practices. I feel, however, that it would be a good thing if my hon. friend were to see to it that this matter is examined in the Committee. I merely gave my opinion, and the Committee can go into it more fully.

Does that mean that sanctions will be applied to states which do not carry out the policy laid down by the international bank?

We are not speaking of the bank, but of the fund. There are certain things which cannot be done in the case of members who subject themselves to regulations which are binding upon them because they became members of the fund. But the specific provisions in this connection will be examined by the Committee to which this matter is referred. Then he asked whether membership of the fund also involved membership of the bank. It would be possible to be a member of the fund and not of the bank.

I want to put a further question to the Minister of Finance in reference to an item on this Vote. The Minister knows that the Banking Act makes provision for the registration of commercial banks after the expiry of a specified period. As far as I know, not a single commercial bank has really been registered as yet. I find no fault with the action of the Government. I take it that there are good reasons why it was decided not to effect registration at this stage. But it is useful to the banks to know where they stand. I do not want to bring the Minister under the impression that I want him to approach the registrar and to expedite the matter. Nor do I want him to make any statement which he may not deem advisable at this stage. There may be difficulties in connection with the matter which the Minister may not want to make public. But I should like to have any information which he is able to give us quite freely.

I should like to say a few words in regard to the circular letter of which the Minister of Finance approved and as a result of which a number of officials resigned. I think it is to be most strongly deprecated that the Minister of Finance approved of that circular letter. It affects the relationship between European and nonEuropean. We know that no Afrikaner likes to address a non-European as Mr. or Mrs. We simply cannot approve of it. I feel that the Minister has taken a step which is going to promote Communistic propaganda in this country. I want to object most strongly on this side of the House to the fact that the Minister of Finance took this step and approved of that circular letter. We want to say to the people who resigned in consequence of that action that in our opinion they did something heroic in preferring to be thrown on to the street rather than to submit to what the Miniser required of them.

Can the hon. member tell me who issued the circular letter?

I refer to the matter which was raised by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp).

I allowed the hon. member for Wolmaransstad to put a question, but I should like to know who issued this circular letter?

It was issued by the Pensions Office.

In that case the hon. member should raise it under the Pensions Vote.

It is a matter of policy which falls under the control of the Minister. It affects the Minister’s policy, and I think the hon. member is entitled, therefore, to raise it here.

Even if it were a question of policy, there is a special vote under which it can be raised, and for that reason I told the hon. member to raise it there.

If we move a reduction of salary, are we not at liberty then to discuss the whole policy of the Minister under this vote?

No, if there is a vote under which any question specifically falls, it must be raised under that vote. I allowed the hon. member to put certain questions, and he will have an opportunity of discussing this matter at a later date.

I should just like to ask whether I can raise the question of the subsidy in respect of the Voortrekker Monument in Pretoria under this vote?

That falls under the Vote of the Minister of the Interior.

I do not want to discuss it now, and I shall leave it until we come to that vote.

I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in regard to the salaries of the messengers. It now appears that these people are in permanent employ and that they receive a salary of £5 per month. They receive a cost of living allowance which in any event cannot be more than £20 per annum. My contention is that it is less than £20 per annum, but assuming it is £20, these messengers still get less than £7 per month. I want to put this question to the Minister of Finance, whether he thinks these young men are able to make ends meet on £7 per month? I do not think the Minister can give the Committee a satisfactory reply on that point. What is to happen to those people if they have to pay board and lodging in the present circumstances? In order to make ends meet on this salary, they must receive charity from someone. I think the Minister ought to view this matter in a more serious light. I do not think it is sufficient for him to say that they receive a cost of living allowance, and simply to leave it at that. This is a serious matter. When we come to the matter of salaries, the question must inevitably be asked whether those people are able to live on the salaries they receive, and it is not to our credit if we pay them a salary on which they cannot exist. Nor can we rely on a war allowance. That allowance will disappear in the near future, and these people will then revert to a salary of £5 per month. It is impossible for them to exist on it. I think the Minister ought to reconsider the whole position, because it is essential to grant an increase.

We on this side are placed in a difficult position in connection with the question of salaries. I was under the impression that the whole question of salaries and wages in the civil service was sub judice owing to the fact that the whole question was being examined by the Public Service Commission of Enquiry.

The hon. member will have an opportunity of discussing it under the Vote of the Minister of the Interior.

I understand that, but hon. members have raised the matter under this vote. It creates the impression that they are the only people who are interested in the question of salaries. We were under the impression that we were not allowed to raise it here.

That is not a point of order.

Are we allowed to raise it? If so, I should like to raise the question in connection with the messengers.

I allowed the hon. member to put a question on this vote, but the general question of the remuneration of civil servants falls under the Vote of the Minister of the Interior.

In view of the statement of the Minister of Finance that we will have an opportunity of discussing the whole question, I do not want to go more fully into the question of Bretton Woods. I want to deal with another point, namely the position in our country in connection with inflation. The Minister of Finance disposed of that question in a very summary manner in his reply to the Budget debate. He simply said: “I am not going to argue with members on the other side and try to refute their arguments; I simply rely on the judgment of the Governor of the Reserve Bank; I prefer his opinion to that of members on the other side of the House”. That is not the way to dispose of such an important matter as this. We are raising this matter here because we regard it as our duty to do so. If we detect the danger signs of inflation, we must bring it to the notice of the Minister of Finance, and it is not right on his part to adopt the ostrich policy of simply hiding his head with the statement that this is the opinion of the Governor of the Reserve Bank and that there is nothing more to be said about the matter. If the Minister had read the speech of the Governor of the Reserve Bank carefully, it would have struck him that the Governor of the Reserve Bank attached a very limited or narrow interpretation to inflation. His whole argument was based on the fact that there was no inflation in the country because the Government had not borrowed money from the Reserve Bank. With due respect to him, I want to say that that gives a very narrow interpretation to inflation; and I want to go further and say that if one gives the true meaning to inflation, the Governor of the Reserve Bank actually stated in that speech that not only are there signs of inflation but that there is inflation in the country already. I want to refer to the passage in his speech which the Minister quoted. The Minister quoted what Mr. Postmus stated—

What is inflation other than an abnormal increase in purchasing power? That is accepted by the Governor of the Reserve Bank because he admits that the purchasing power is on an abnormal level today, and he says that when that purchasing power returns to normal, everything will be in order again. If one accepts those words of his, it does not justify the conclusion which he bases on it, because here we still have one of the characteristic signs of inflation, namely that the purchasing power is out of all proportion to the normal level; the purchasing power has become abnormal in comparison with the goods available. Let us go futher. I have already shown the tremendous increase in the currency in circulation. In 1939 notes to the value of £19,000,000 were in circulation. In 1944 that figure had risen to £51,000,000. That is a tremendous increase in the available currency. During the same period deposits in the Reserve Bank increased from £22.6 million to £129,000,000. Deposits at the commercial banks during the same period increased from £158,000,000 to £270,000,000. But during the same period the value of goods and services increased by only 11.3 per cent. In other words, the increase which took place in the volume of money which was available was much greater than the increase in service renered and goods available for the purchasing power. That is one of the essential things in connection with inflation in this country, and it is something which we on this side pointed out, and we do not want, the Minister to dispose so lightly of a problem which is of the greatest importance to the country. He speaks of co-operation. When we on this side of the House detect dangers to the country and we warn him in all seriousness in the responsible position which he occupies, I do not think it becomes the Minister of Finance simply to tell us that he is not going to take any notice of that warning in view of the statement of the Governor of the Reserve Bank, a statement which, as I have shown, does not prove what the Minister said here. That statement of Mr. Postmus is based on a very narrow interpretation of inflation. But when we look at the true meaning of inflation we see that Mr. Postmus admits in that speech that already there is inflation in the country. He stated, inter alia—

I think in this connection we must point out the defintion which was given of inflation—

Mr. Postmus admits this when he speaks of a greater number of buyers who have to compete for a smaller quantity of goods. I say again that this is one of the characteristics of a condition of inflation, if there is an increased amount of money available for a limited quantity of goods. For that reason we say that we shall be glad if the Minister of Finance will not summarily dismiss our arguments, which, we tried to submit to the country on a sound basis, by referring to the speech of the Governor of the Reserve Bank, who attached a very restricted interpretation to it, namely, that the Government has not yet borrowed money from the Reserve Bank and that inflation has therefore not yet started, while in actual fact his speech is tantamount to a statement that there is inflation in the country already. I say that in recent times we have again had the characteristic signs of inflation, and up to the present there is no sign of that inflation having been checked. We are still faced with an increase in the costs of living figures. In December, 1944, the figure was 31.1 per cent. above the scale for 1938, and at that time house rent was also taken into account. We know that to a certain extent rentals were fixed. If we do not take into account the rental figure, the increase was already 36.3 per cent., and as yet there is no sign that inflation has been checked. There is still a gradual increase in the cost of living. The cost of living has again risen by a few points, and there is no sign that the Minister’ has succeeded in pegging the increase in the cost of living. We want to know therefore whether the Minister has a policy in this connection which he wants to announce to the country; whether he wants us to continue in this fool’s paradise? We on this side want to sound a note of warning. We see the danger signals and we want to know whether we cannot convince the Minister so that he too, will see those danger signals. We want to assist him so that we can feel that he is aware of the danger signs and that he is taking steps to ward off the danger. [Time limit.]

I just want to say to the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) that I cannot give him a definite date in connection with the registration of commercial banks. I hope it will be able to take place within the next few months. He knows that in that connection we experienced various difficulties which prevented us from putting it into effect earlier. As far as inflation is concerned, we have this difficulty that we are dealing with a word which is not always interpreted in the same way by different persons. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) proved that by saying that the Governor of the Reserve Bank used the word in a very narrow sense. Quite possibly. On the other hand if I have to accept his description that inflation means an abnormal increase in the purchasing power, we would then be using the word in a very wide sense. The difficulty arises owing to the fact that different people do not attach the same meaning to it. Unfortunately there are many persons who think that inflation necessarily means a permanent reduction in the purchasing power of money, and when one speaks of inflation, many people in this country think of the experience gained after the last war. What Mr. Postmus did in his speech was to try and prove that we have no reason to be afraid of it. When people understand that, they can speak of inflation, but inflation does not necessarily mean a permanent reduction in the purchasing power of money. When the hon. member says that there is an increase in the purchasing power in our country, that is undoubtedly true; when he says that there has been an increase in prices, that is undoubtedly true, and I also said that in the speech to which the hon. member referred. I did not only confine myself to a quotation from Mr. Postmus’ speech. I also referred to what happened as a result of the increased prices, and I tried to state the reasons why circumstances had arisen in South Africa which may have led to a greater increase in prices than one woul dhave liked to see. I dealt with that in my speech. Of course, we adopted this policy in order to prevent increased prices: taxation, to mention one means; saving was another, price control was a third means and various other steps in the same direction were of assistance. As I said in my speech, I should have liked to see greater success in checking increased prices, but I quoted the Governor of the Reserve Bank, as an indication that we did not really have any reason to fear that the value of our money would be permanently reduced. With regard to increased prices, may I just point out that to a certain extent there has been a change in the tendency. It is rather striking that in February the index figure was lower than it was in January. It was the first time in a series of years that that happened, because in February the figure usually goes up, and generally speaking, if one does not take into account the increase in rentals—there was an increase of 20 points—we can say that we have not fared very badly during the past year. But I do not want to suggest that I am satisfied, and if the hon. member says that there is something which can be regarded as a danger sign, I shall not deny it, of course. But I again want to quote the opinion of Mr. Postmus as an opinion which supports my attitude that we need not fear a permanent reduction in the value of our money.

I am glad the hon. Minister admits that there is a danger and that the means which he adopted—taxation, compulsory savings and price fixation, did not appear to be effective. That is exactly what we told the Minister two years ago, and we suggested a form of saving, not on a small scale and on a temporary basis, under which one is at liberty to withdraw the money after a period of months, with the result that it again comes into circulation and only delays the dänger—but a long period which will carry us over the danger period and which can be applied in a different manner. The Minister says that I may be attaching a very wide interpretation to the word inflation, but I have not done so without authority.

No, there are other people who share that view.

There is an abundance of authorities supporting my interpretation, but except for Mr. Postmus I have never known such a narrow meaning to be given to inflation, namely that inflation is merely a question of whether or not the Government borrowed money from the Reserve Bank. I do not think that is a proposition which is confirmed by any authority of importance. I am only saying that I did not lay down this proposition without authority; it is a danger sign and something should be done in this connection. Another point in connection with which I should like to have information from the Minister is in connection with the agreement which was made last year in connection with our imports from India. Last year, especially at the insistence of this side, the Minister arranged that we would get the benefit of the higher gold price on the Bombay market, which varied from 280s. to 320s. per fine ounce, in respect of our imports from India. I believe, although I have not had an opportunity of confirming it, that the position is that the prices obtained for gold on the Bombay market are still as high as they were a year ago, but that the British Government is no longer paying in gold in India, and therefore we are deriving no benefit from the fact that up to 320s. can be obtained for gold. I learn that in actual fact we are now getting only 168s. for our gold. This is a very important point if one takes into accout the fact that in recent times the imports from India to South Africa have steadily increased. I think the Minister recently gave figures which indicated that the imports rose to £11,000,000 per annum. That means that if we had got the benefit of the high price of gold in India, we would have been able to save nearly £5,000,000 in respect of that year on our imports from India; in other words, we could have bought these goods to the value of £11,000,000 against a payment in gold of £6,000,000, but today we have to pay for it in gold to the value of £11,000,000. The agreement which existed last year gave our country an advantage of £2,000,000, but that agreement was terminated in September last, and we should like to know why it was terminated. Is there no other way in which we can get the benefit of the high price of gold in Bombay? Surely the position is that gold is still being sold there. Are we bound to such an extent that we cannot sell our gold in India and that we cannot even bring our influence to bear on England to give us this concession that we will get the benefit of the high gold price in India, at any rate up to the amount of our imports? I think we cannot leave it at that. Last year within a few months it meant approximately £2,000,000 to us, and since there was a prospect of our saving £5,000,000 on today’s figures, a serious attempt should be made by the Government to ensure that we get the benefit of the higher price which is being paid for gold in India—on our imports from India, at any rate.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

House to resume in Committee on 10th April.