I think the hon. member will get a reply to those questions from the Acting Prime Minister himself tomorrow morning.

In regard to the first part of the agreement I want to state that my first objection and an important objection from this side of the House is that this agreement was entered into at a time when there was so much uncertainty and that in actual fact no contract exists. After the contract has come into force practically everything has to be settled by negotiation. Take for instance Clause 3 of the agreement. In that clause the contract itself states that conditions are so abnormal that no actual agreement can be entered into for the duration of the contract. The contract is for ten years but it can be cancelled after eighteeen months because of the abnormal times. The clause states—

There is, however, another clause which is of even more importance than this clause, namely Clause 4, under which a settlement has to be come to in regard to the freight tariffs the State will have to pay for goods to be transported by the Conference lines from here to Europe and in this respect also no final decision is made and it is only a temporary arrangement because in the wording of the clause the times are so abnormal. For that reason no rate can be fixed. Clause 4 states that the provisions also remain in force in regard to prices, and that as circumstances become less abnormal, a conference will be held from time to time for the fixing of rates. The worst of all, however, is that there is no indication to show to what extent the rate may rise and how much higher it may be than the prewar tariff. In Clause 23 a certain limit is laid down and there it is stated that the tariff, as soon as conditions return to normal, will not be higher than the merchants’ rate of 1927. The merchants’ rate, however, was in many cases 40 per cent. or even more above the contract rate between the State and the Conference lines in 1927. Is such a basis founded on sound business principles? It simply means that there is not the slightest certainty as regards freight rates. We are asked to accept this vague contract as an accomplished fact. Nothing can be done about it. We simply have to accept it and all we are sure of is that once normal conditions return the tariffs will not be higher than the merchants’ rate of 1927. That means nothing to us. The merchants’ rate was the ordinary tariff at which other shipping lines which did not join the agreement transported goods to the Union. Therefore if that is the basis of our agreement, we have achieved nothing. This provision is too vague. We cannot approve of it. I honestly feel that Clause 23 is a very dangerous one. Once they start negotiating about tariffs and they have arrived at the basis of the merchants’ rate of 1927, what guarantee does the Government have that the Conference lines will be prepared to decrease existing tariffs? There is not the slightest guarantee. There are all kinds of guarantees in favour of the Conference lines but the State received no guarantee whatsoever. I want to confine my remarks more in particular to the transport of perishable products. We notice from the agreement that as far as the transport of perishable products is concerned both the Conference lines and the Perishable Products Export Control Board are tied down to a quantity of 9,000 tons per week during a certain period of the year and to 14,000 tons per week during another period of the year. They have to provide space for 9,000 tons during a certain period of the year and for 14,000 tons during another period of the year. As far as this matter of 9,000 tons and 14,000 tons is concerned, it means that the Conference lines have now obtained a monopoly. Although we do feel that provision should be made for the transport of perishable products we do not believe in the creation of a monopoly. It may be argued that as far as the 9,000 tons and 14,000 tons per week are concerned, an agreement has been entered into which ’in fact amounts to a monopoly. Unfortunately that is not the end of it. As far as the quantity is concerned over and above the 9,000 tons per week during a certain period of the year and 14,000 tons per week during another period of the year, which we may have to export, we cannot enter into negotiations with other shipping lines. Also in regard to these quantities we first have to go to the Conference lines and give them preference. Also for the excess quantity for which we may require more space than the 9,000 tons or the 14,000 tons, we will have to go to the Conference lines. They are given a total monopoly and the monopoly is more specifically entrenched in the final part of Clause 25. There we notice that the Conference lines do not guarantee to provide us with the necessary space during a certain period. They only undertake to provide this space gradually as more ships become available and they frankly indicate that they are not going to use all their ships on the South African routes but also on other routes. As they have ships available for Union ports they will gradually provide us with the space required. They arre business people. It could have been expected that if they cannot provide us with the required space, we cannot be bound to, such an extent that we cannot force them by entering into an agreement with: other shipping lines calling at Union ports. If the contractors should be too slow in providing us with the space mentioned in the agreement and if we needed the space, one would surely expect that we should have the right to force their hands or to accept an offer from other shipping lines. According to the contract, however, we do have the right to do so to a certain extent but on the other hand the contract also stipulates that if they cannot provide us with approved cold storage space, and if we negotiate with other shipping lines to provide such cold storage space, then we shall again have to give preference to the Conference lines to provide us with inferior cold storage space. The contract reads—

We therefore see that it is very clearly stated here that we cannot force their hands. If they do not provide the necessary approved cold storage facilities we can negotiate with other shipping lines to transport our perishable products but the agreement stipulates that also in that case the Conference lines must receive preference to transport the products in non-approved cold storage space. So in fact they obtain a foolproof monopoly. That is given to the Conference lines. It may be argued that the contract is being entered into during abnormal times and that this is the reason for this peculiar agreement. But since this agreement is entered into during an abnormal period, is it necessary that we should tie Our hands for a period of ten years? And since we enter into this agreement during an abnormal period, is it necessary to have the final section of paragraph (c) of Clause 25 inserted? Under that provision we are also being tied down as far as non-approved cold storage space is concerned. These additions were unnecessary. They are additions, not to assist the Control Board but to ensure to the Conference lines the whole of South Africa’s business in regard to perishable products. Since all these guarantees are given to a certain shipping line, one would expect that on the other hand the Control Board would also receive certain guarantees in case that shipping line cannot fulfil its obligations. We know today that as a result of this war England has become poor. We must expect that after this war there will not be the same amount of consumption of our perishable products as there was before the war. We also know that the rest of Europe has become impoverished. In other words we know that England and Europe are in fact living on an economic volcano. There may be a collapse at any time. For that reason the Perishable Products Export Control Board should have certain safeguards if such a collapse were to take place in Europe, because these are conditions which cannot be determined in advance. Furthermore we notice that two weeks’ or four weeks’ or two months’ notice will have to be given that cold storage space will be required. Let us suppose that the board asks for cold storage space in two months’ time and a total collapse were to take place in Europe and the board would find it impossible to export the perishable products at the ruling prices, has the Government in its negotiations protected the board to any extent against such a contingency? No! The Conference lines on the other hand are safeguarded against unforeseen difficulties. In Clause 1 they have a guarantee which safeguards them against unforeseen difficulties. What has been done on the other hand to safeguard us if unforeseen difficulties should arise, such as those which I mentioned? Anything may happen in Europe. We know how price collapses come about. If that should happen, we are in the hands of the Conference lines and there is no guarantee in the contract to prevent that we shall simply have to pay for the cold storage space which had been booked, whatever the price may be which we can obtain for our products. The worst of all in regard to the transport of perishable products is that the Government went along and entered into an agreement with the Conference lines and that in that agreement, as far as the transport of Government requirements is concerned, the Government at least took care that there would be a certain basis of prices which may not be surpassed, namely that they can never go higher than the merchants’ rate of 1927. What did the Government do in regard to tariffs which may be charged for the transport of our perishable products? Nothing whatsoever. As far as our perishable products are concerned, we are simply left to the mercy of the wolves. There is no guarantee whatsoever. In Clause 23 of the agreement we find a certain stipulation in regard to prices but this only refers to the transport of Government requirements. But when we come to the transport of agricultural products no provision to that effect has been made. The Government therefore went along and to a certain extent made provision in this agreement as far as the transport of its own requirements is concerned. In that respect there is a certain guarantee in regard to tariffs, but when the Government had to deal with the transport of agricultural products they did nothing at all and in this part of the agreement, which has been signed on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, no determination of any basis for tariffs whatsoever can be found. All that has to be done by means of negotiations long after the Agreement has been signed. For that reason we on this side of the House cannot approve of the Agreement and we have to criticise it in the strongest language. We cannot but let the people outside and this House know that this Government went along and entered into an agreement in which it protected itself to a certain extent as far as freight rates are concerned and that they left the exporter of agricultural products entirely without protection. I really feel that this contract has four serious and important defects. The first one is that an absolute monopoly is being created here for the Conference lines in regard to the export of perishable products and that is a monopoly for ten years. As far as the tariffs are concerned, we feel that the interests of the agriculturists have simply been lost sight of and that we have no guarantee of future freight prices. In the third place we fell that a period of ten years is altogether too long under present circumstances. During the years 1918 to 1922 there was no fixed agreement but the Agreement was renewed from year to year. Why did the Government find it impossible during a period such as the present, when everything is so uncertain, to continue that arrangement without entering into a new contract until such time as conditions return to normal and more definite steps can be taken? The fourth objection is that in entering into this contract all sound business principles have gone overboard. Before the war there were several shipping lines serving the needs of the Union of South Africa. This Government has entirely abandoned the principle of negotiation. They simply tied us down like slaves to a single company. We have no right to deal with other companies. That one single company will if it feels like it, negotiate with other companies and then tell the Government that some other shipping line is also prepared to join the Conference lines. The Union-Castle Company, however, is the sole boss of the situation. The Government without negotiations and without any business principles simply entered into an agreement and placed the House and the country before an accomplished fact, and if I may say so, before a rotten accomplished fact. In view of these defects we on this side of the House feel that we must definitely object’ in the strongest possible language against this Agreement, and the people will not forget it. I want to emphasise once more that especially the farmers will not forget that the Government obtained a certain guarantee for itself in regard to future freight prices where no prices have been fixed, but that as far as the farmers are concerned, no trouble was taken to find a guarantee for them also which would prevent them simply having to dance to the tune of the Conference lines as far as freight rates are concerned.

I should like to know from the Minister why no mention is made of passenger fares in this contract. It seems strange that it is not mentioned in a contract of this sort. It will be remembered that after the last war, before competition arose with the Union-Castle Line, their passenger fares were practically the highest in the world, taking into consideration the distance covered and the type of ship you travelled in; while at the same time the fares of the P.S.N.C. and R.M.S. lines to South America from the United Kingdom were a half to a third lower for similar types of passages. I think the public of South Africa should be protected. The Union-Castle Line will practically have a monopoly, their only British competitor being a small line which runs only one passenger boat a month, and I think South Africa should hesitate before entering into a contract of this kind which, in my opinion, though a contract which should serve both signatories well, practically gives a monopoly because the line that has the mail contract has great advantages over any other line. I want the Minister to know that the public of South Africa is looking forward to the day when they will get some protection in the matter of passenger fares, and I will be very glad if this is borne in mind in future contracts.

The Minister told us in his review of the contract that he felt we had come to a satisfactory business arrangement. In the main the Minister may be justified in saying that, but when we come to study matters contained in the contract and particularly under the heading “Special undertakings by contractors” this business arrangement seems after all to be open to considerable improvement. Paragraph 40 (i) (ii) and (iii) contain very important matters in this contract. Sub-paragraph (i) sets out that the company will employ in their ships Union nationals to an extent not less than 20 per cent. of the personnel. Then it goes on to say “provided that a sufficient number of suitable qualified applicants are available.” One quite understands that “qualified” applicants are definitely essential in the working of ships; but one wants to know what is the meaning of the word “suitable”. I have had considerable experience of sailors; I have known tall ones, short ones, fat ones, thin ones, and I have known drunken ones and sober ones, but I am wondering what is meant by “suitable applicants”. I am not aware that any citizen of South Africa could be less suitable than any citizen of any other country, and it seems to me there is a loop-hole for the rejection of our men, even if they are qualified, because on some grounds they are not suitable, and I do not think this is a good business arrangement to allow the company to have a loop-hole of that kind. When you take the whole range of a ship’s personnel even the qualifications need not in view of the percentage be so high. We know how many different ratings constitute the crew of a ship, and it is our job to see to it that in the higher ranks the qualifications are in order, so I rather stick at the word “suitable”. I say definitely this gives the company a loophole to reject for some obscure reason people who are qualified. For that reason this contract is not good business for South Africans who are thinking of entering the merchant service as a career, and I would ask the Minister to consider the deletion of that word, because it is superfluous. The second sub-paragraph relates to the purchase of Union produce. It reads—

What is the meaning of “reasonably practicable”? Surely a company like the Union-Castle Company can enter into firm contracts with people for the supply of goods? I cannot see any reason why they cannot.

They have done so in the past and will do so in the future.

We should not want to allow a company of this kind any loophole. They can enter into contracts in this country for the supply of goods. It is not a proposition that depends on conjecture. They know their business, they know their sailings, they know their requirements, and what is to prevent a definite statement that they will enter into definite contracts with the people of this country to supply such goods as are necessary on the voyage from South Africa to England? I am worried about the indefiniteness of the proposition, that it will react, if anything at all, to the disadvantage of South Africa. Here the Minister has not been so businesslike. My experience of businessmen is this; they do not go into a contract as a business proposition unless they know just where they are. If the business people in South Africa undertake to supply the goods we know they will supply them without a shadow of doubt, we are quite confident about that. So why not be definite? Why put in such a phrase as “reasonably practicable”? The interpretation of that will depend on somebody’s idea of things rather than that a firm contract should exist. Then in the third subparagraph we have a, reference to ship repair work in the Union. We have had references to our new facilities in the big dry dock which is now completed. That removes any possibility that we shall not be able to house ships. We shall be able to house any ship that is likely to come to South Africa for quite a number of years. So there can be no objection surely to basing some of these ships upon South Africa as a repair proposition. I am aware to some extent of the use and practice in Great Britain. It is the practice to base certain ships on certain ports that have the facilities, and to make those ports their repair base. It seems to me this was the proper moment to have said to the company: “Are you prepared to have Cape Town as you repair base for certain of your ships?” They might have consented to one only, but that would at least have given us one ship which would have been looked upon as our particular charge. These three clauses, though short, are so important that I feel the Minister cannot be satisfied with their indefiniteness. When I turn over the page and notice the amount of space given to the subject of conveyance of pedigree stock I wonder whether it is merely incidental that it takes so many words. Surely it offers a very sharp contrast to have nearly a whole page about the conveyance of pedigree stock and only three short paragraphs about conditions that concern the men of the country, the business of the country, and our development as active participators in the repairs of the ships in service. In the absence of facilities at the moment—and I do not want to be unreasonable—one cannot expect the Government to wave a magic wand and build ships. But we have the men, we have the brains, and we have the ability in organisation if called upon to face up to the present repair position, and I think the Minister will not be able to pride himself on having put through a really business-like contract unless he sees that these three paragraphs are amended in the way I have indicated.

Nobody can be against entering into contracts with shipping companies, for the aim of any person who is interested in the expansion of the trade of his country with other countries should be to make that trade easier than it was before, and to make it as easy as possible by having sufficient ships, by having ships calling at the required ports where trade can be found and where the tariffs are of such an advantageous nature that one’s own country can derive the benefit of such trade. The question which arises in connection with this agreement entered into with the Union-Castle Company is the following: Is this new contract of more advantage to South Africa than the previous contract which we had, or is it more to the advantage of the Union-Castle Company? The question one asks oneself is whether, taking the basis of the 1934 contract, that basis of 1934 in itself was not already more advantageous for the Union-Castle Company than it should have been. If one looks at the trading results of the Union Castle Company before the war one can only arrive at one conclusion and that is that of all the large shipping companies in the world the Union-Castle Company was one of the most profitable ones.

They became very wealthy.

It is one of the best paying shipping companies in the world. How did they make that money? They made it from the profits they made on the shipping between Europe and South Africa, and those profits, those enormous profits they made were made as a result of the agreements they had entered into from time to time with the various Governments of South Africa and therefore one cannot but come to the conclusion that the old agreements we had before this one, contributed to a very large extent to making the Union-Castle Company one of the wealthiest companies in the whole world. From this fact it may be deduced that in every case the contracts which we had with the Union-Castle Company in the past must have been of a very profitable nature for them, for had that not been the case, one might ’ well ask how they became to be one of the largest and richest shipping companies in the world, seeing that their trade with other parts of the world apart from South Africa is almost negligible. The enormous profits they made were made on South African trade and that has to be kept in mind when considering this new Agreement. We must ask ourselves whether this contract was entered into in the first instance to benefit South Africa, or whether the interests of South Africa were sacrificed in order to promote the interests of the Union-Castle Company which has become the spoiled child of the Governments of the Union; was it entered into in order to enrich the Union-Castle Company still further? The first question that arises in regard to certain aspects of this matter is whether in this contract any attempt has been made to establish shipping companies in South Africa either by way of a protection for your Government shipping or by way of the protection of shipping companies trading between South Africa and other overseas countries, and thirdly whether protection is given to coastal shipping from one Union port to another or to nearby ports along the west or east coast of South Africa. If one keeps that in view, then there is nothing in this Agreement which indicates that any steps have been taken for the promotion of South African shipping companies. It can rather be deduced that obstacles are placed in the way of the establishment of our own shipping companies in South Africa. Let us first consider the question of our own shipping, our coastal shipping, our smaller ships which will carry on trade between one South African port and another South African port, including perhaps east coast and west coast of southern Africa. To call such a shipping company into being one must do what has been done in other countries, and that is to lay down that the traffic between your one port and your other port shall be limited to your own ships. If that is not done it will be practically impossible to call into being your own coastal shipping facilities, and such steps have been taken by 30 or 40 countries. On a previous occasion I read out a list of 30 or 40 countries which protect their own coastal shipping. In England a South African ship cannot load cargo in Liverpool and transport it to discharge it at Southampton. Only English ships may handle that inter-port traffic. Under this contract, however, the Union-Castle Company is still free, when one of its ships calls at Cape Town—and it is paid a subsidy to go on to Durban—to load a cargo at Cape Town and in spite of that subsidy to discharge it in Durban in competition with our own ships. As a subsidy is paid for the voyage from here to Durban the company can of course carry the freight between here and Durban at a much cheaper rate than other companies which do not receive the subsidy. Let us now consider the question of Government ships. The question whether the Government should own ships or not has been a matter of dispute for quite a long time, but I think that during the last few years it has been shown that the ships belonging to the Government were of great benefit to us and that Government ships can be a profitable undertaking, that they can be run, if not at a profit, then at least without a loss, and in times of difficulty they can come in very handy and can be of great benefit to South Africa in connection with the transport of Government requirements, in respect of the transport of materials to parts of the country or the world where the ordinary shipping companies do not call. Surely one would have expected that a Government entering into an agreement with a private company would at least make provision for the protection and safeguarding of its own shipping. One would expect that they would tell such a private company: “We may grant you the right to transport all Government requirements with the exception of course of those which we transport with our own ships”. That is the kind of agreement the ordinary business man would enter into. He would say: “What I cannot transport in my own ships, I will give to you to transport”. That, however, is not the position under this Agreement now before us. This contract limits the share of the Government’s own shipping to 12½ per cent. of the Government’s requirements, 87½ per cent. being reserved for the Union-Castle Company. In other words, the Government ships which were mainly acquired for the transport of Government requirements no longer are in existence; it is very doubtful whether they can still be run at a profit in the future when we shall be compelled to hand over the freight which could have been transported in our own ships to a private company to be transported by them at a profit. We now come to the third question. We talk much about South Africa wanting to have its own shipping companies in South Africa. First of all we talk about our own coastal shipping. I am not now referring to coastal shipping or Government ships but about the possibility of using ships registered in South Africa to transport goods to other countries. It will be obvious that if we would have South African ships, those ships would not be de luxe passenger ships. They would be smaller ships usually known as “tramps”. They would only carry heavy materials from the one port to the other. South African ships could obtain a great measure of support if the Government wanted to assist them, but the difficulty with those ships would be to compete against other shipping lines. The difficulty of the South African ships would be to obtain full loads. Well, the Government can control an enormous amount of freight and if the Government wanted to give that support to our own ships by declaring that it is going to have its freight carried by ships belonging to South African companies, the future for such South African shipping companies would most likely be assured, but now the Government cannot do so. Under the agreement the Government has to turn around and say: Here is a South African ship going to Southampton and coming back here, but of the enormous quantity of goods which we import from England and of the enormous quantity of goods which we export to England, we will not be allowed to give a single ton to a South African ship. It will all have to be carried by a foreign ship. In other words, this contract first of all works against our own Government shipping: secondly it obstructs the possible expansion of our own coastal shipping in South Africa and thirdly the contract makes it practically impossible to establish our own South African shipping companies to carry freight from South Africa to other far distant countries overseas. In entering into this agreement we have now gone even further and have in fact granted the Union-Castle Company a monopoly. Take for instance the Conference lines and the admittance of other shipping to the Conference lines. As far as I can see from the contract, the Union-Castle Company will in practice have all the say in regard to who can join the Conference lines, as a result of the enormous powers it possesses and in view of the fact that other ships joining the Conference lines have to conform to the conditions of this agreement. They also come under the provisoins thereof and to a very large extent the Union-Castle Company will by virtue of the powerful and privileged position it occupies be able to determine who shall carry freight to South Africa and who not.

It will rule the roost.

It will be able to determine which other shipping companies will be allowed to trade with South Africa and which will not be allowed to do so. This holds all kinds of difficulties in store for us. Before the war we had shipping lines carrying trade for us from Europe, from the ports which are affected by this Agreement— English shipping companies, French, Italian, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch, Belgian and now and again Russian and one or two Lithuanian which no longer exist. In the future it will depend largely on the Union-Castle Company in how far those ships will still be allowed to trade on South Africa, and this focuses our attention on an important point.

Was the position not the same under the old agreement?

The position now is that those shipping companies have ceased to exist. The new shipping lines which will come into being after the war will again have to join the Conference and the conditions under which they can so join will be largely determined by the Union-Castle Company by virtue of the powers it will have under this agreement. If that is so then this agreement can be used to hamper possible trade between us and the European continent in future. Before the war we derived much benefit from the sale of our products in various countries of Europe. Large quantities of wool and fruit were delivered to those countries and we were busy finding new markets for manganese and similar products. This Agreement, however, may be used in such a way that we will to a very large extent be limited to the British market and to the British market only for the sale of our products. And on the other side again, we shall to a very large extent be limited in our purchases to Great Britain and Great Britain only. As soon as you are limited as far as your markets are concerned, also as far as your purchases for imports are concerned, you will suffer as a result of the higher prices which you will have to pay for the imported articles because competition has to a large extent been eliminated. This I consider to be one of the final dangers in regard to this Agreement. Then there is still one further point, namely the amount to be paid to the Union-Castle Company for the carrying of mails to and from South Africa. We notice that the subsidy to the Union-Castle Company is going to be larger than before the war, and we ask ourselves why this should be the case. If there were a large increase in the quantity of mails which the company will have to carry, one could still understand, that a higher subsidy has to be paid. Now, however, the position is that the mails between Cape Town and Durban are no longer carried by sea at all. Our mails in general have not become larger, and our seaborne mails are indeed becoming smaller because the air mails are increasing so enormously. Even before the war the Union-Castle Company already had ceased to carry mails between Cape Town and Durban. They discharge the mails in Cape Town and then it is transported to Durban by train or by air because the people in Durban obtain their mails in Durban two or three days earlier by this method. Whereas the quantity of mails is diminishing, we are now going to pay the company more for the transport of the mails. That looks to me to be extremely poor business.

The mail from England to Cape Town is more.

If we take the mails from England to Cape Town and from Cape Town to Durban, then there has been a decrease in the total during the war. I do not want to go into detail in regard to Clause 4, referring to the freight rates, but I want to emphasise what was said by the hon. member for Smith field (Mr. Fouché), namely that this is a most peculiar Agreement. It might be just as well if I read it out—

Well, the most important aspect of this whole matter is the question of tariffs. The people of South Africa are not so much interested in how fast the mail steamers can do the voyage. There are only a few people interested in that aspect. The very large majority of the people are interested in what it is going to cost to have goods carried by those vessels. The traders are interested and the public in general are interested in it. It is certainly the most important aspect of the whole contract. The position is in fact now that the two parties to the agreement have declared that they are going to enter into an agreement to do a certain thing and then they do not do so after all. The hon. member for Smithfield quite rightly asked why an Agreement has been entered into. During the war period we extended the Agreement from year to year. Would it not be better now to extend that Agreement again until such time as we can have a reasonable measure of certainty about post-war conditions, and when afterwards we see how conditions in the world develop, we can determine reasonable tariffs. We are now entering into an Agreement under which this company can charge the war tariff, the highest tariff which was ever applicable in the past. Then we have some further conditions. What should be the procedure if South Africa feels that the tariffs are too high? In that case the Government can make representations to the Union-Castle Company. Most likely the position will be that the public will bring pressure to bear on the Government, and then the Government will address representations to the Union-Castle Company, and if the Union-Castle Company feels that the tariffs are not too high, then the only remedy the Government has will be to cancel the Agreement.

Provision is made for arbitration.

Every time the Government has to wait until pressure is brought to bear upon it from the side of the public. The Government must first be persuaded to make representations to the Union-Castle Company. We know what arbitration means in such cases. It takes about a year before a decision is arrived at. I do not want to go further into this matter. I support the remarks made by the hon. member for Smithfield. Finally I want to point out that there is nothing in this Agreement indicating any protection for our own shipping, but quite the opposite. In regard to this Agreement there is no encouragement or protection for our own shipping, whether coastal shipping or a shipping company to undertake shipping to overseas countries. It is made impossible for us to start a company for overseas shipping here in South Africa. We are dealing here with one of the richest shipping companies in the whole world, and if we look at this Agreement, we can come to only one conclusion, namely that the Minister was overwhelmed, perhaps by the titles of the people with whom he had to negotiate, but in any case so overwhelmed by the public school spirit demonstrated by the negotiators, that he was quite overcome, and the result was that he signed an Agreement which is not in the best interests of South Africa, but which will have the effect that this company, which undoubtedly is one of the richest, will in future wax still richer than it was in the past.

Personally I am deeply dissatisfied with the contract which has been brought up before the House. I must say that I do not often agree with the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) who has just spoken, but I think that what he has just said will be pretty well endorsed throughout the country. Now, what does the country get? For £300,000 or, if it is capitalised, £6,000,000, which it has to pay to the Union-Castle Company, what does it get? It does not get a faster service. In the last Agreement the time stipulated was 13 days 10 hours. Now it is fourteen days, so that really under the last Agreement shipping came out here faster than it will come out now. So we cannot get anything there. The hon. Senator laughs, but it is longer. Did the Minister consult his Shipping Board before making this Agreement?

Our Shipping Board was consulted, or the chairman was.

Then I take it that the hon. Minister put this Agreement before our Shipping Board and that they agreed?

They very largely negotiated it.

I am not asking the Minister that. I am asking whether the Shipping Board agreed to this particular contract, or did it not? Do not give a political reply to an old politician. I want to know, yes or no.

The chairman of the Shipping Board was one of the people who negotiated it.

Again I ask the Minister: Did they approve of it or did they not? So there is no reply. And why did not the Minister say to the Union-Castle Company: you must register a subsidiary company in this country whereby all intermediate ships shall be registered here? If that had been done these intermediate ships would have had to employ 100 per cent. South African personnel. Why was that not done?

It is subsidised.

Allow me to make my own speech. But what did you say? Say it out loud enough so that Hansard can hear it.

It is subsidised.

It is not subsidised. South Africa is making them a present of £6,000,000. Number 1, the ships will be slower. Number 2, the Shipping Board has not agreed to it. Number 3, why did we not force the Union-Castle Company to have a subsidiary company whereby these boats could have been registered here and employ 100 per cent. South African personnel? Now, the hon. member for Humansdorp is right. When this war is over they will hardly be carrying any first-class mail from England. If that is not so, why does the Minister of Railways spend hours and hours and our good money on a big air conference and then tell us that in future aeroplanes will carry our mail? Our mail will be carried by air. Some of us wanted the air mail to be run right through to England, but we did not get that. As a businessman, do you think I will let the Union-Castle Line carry my letters? It would take them three weeks, whereas the air mail from London to New York will bring it here in three or four days. They will only carry second-class mail.

Not three days.

I am telling the hon. member that in two days our letters will be delivered here from London, and from New York in probably four. These little points will not put me off. The younger members of this House may yet see the day when our letters will come out in one day, but we have now been tied for 10 years to a mail service taking 14 days. Of course no businessman is going to use that line. He will pay a little more, or he may not even pay more, but he will use the air service. That ocean mail, as the hon. member has said, is a diminishing business. Our important mail in future will come by air.

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

At the adjournment I was asking the Minister what the country was getting for the capitalised £6,000,000 represented by this contract. The time for the trip used to be 13 days 10 hours and it is now increased to 14 days. I do not want the Minister to tell us that is the minimum time, because we know with the Union-Castle Company if it is fixed at 13 days 10 hours it is that and nothing less, and if it is 14 days it is 14 days and nothing less. When we appealed to them in this House many years ago to cut down the time under the minimum the cry always was so much more coal would be used to increase the speed. I also ask the Minister why he did not arrange that the intermediate ships would carry the South African flag. The mail in future will be largely air-borne and less first-class air mail will be sent by sea than before. I would refer to the report of the South African Nautical College Committee, page 3, Clause 22—

It appears to me the Government has missed a golden opportunity in not having these intermediate boats on the South African register so that they could be classed as South African ships. We know in this war the Shipping Board had to go cap in hand to the Union-Castle Company for anything they wanted, and I believe Union-Castle boats went to other parts of the world but did not come to the Union. I want to ask the Minister why he did not follow the advice given by this committee. In Clause 25 they say—

Under this scheme all we get is a few cargo boats. For 10 years to come South Africa cannot have her own South African merchant navy. She can have a few cargo boats. 20 per cent. South African personnel are being used. I would like to ask the Minister whether when he was making this contract he took into consideration that Great Britain might at any time, if the Labour Party gets into power—and they may—nationalise her shipping which would then pass into the hands of the British Government, and in that event what will become of the Union-Castle Company? Will they rush their boats to South Africa and sell them here? The Minister has not mentioned this point in his statement. A further point is that we have spent an enormous amount of money on dry docks, but I see nothing in this agreement whereby the company must use those dry docks, and not the dry docks in England, to scrape the keels.

You mean careen.

There we have the correct Scottish word. Those ships, instead of employing South African labour to clean them here will go to Southampton for that work to be done. Why did we not adopt the system further, that was adopted in the United States, Canada and Australia, and—as was mentioned by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer)—provide that all shipping going into our coastal ports, say from Port Elizabeth to East London, carrying South African goods, should be of South African register and employ South African personnel? What is the answer to that? I should like this Agreement to be referred to a Select Committee of this House. It is the worst Agreement South Africa ever has made with the Union-Castle Company. The Minister, in referring to the increased subsidy said the ships would cost more to build. But if the ships are lost the company does not carry the loss, they are heavily insured. The Union-Castle Company have battened on this country as long as I can remember. Now just when we were starting the new brave world, and after South Africa has played an enormous part in world events and has built up a fine little navy, and when we have this wonderful report of the South African Nautical College Committee, just when we think we are going to have our own little mercantile navy, we are dealt this blow, we are making this new Agreement with the Union-Castle Company and the only thing they give you is that they carry’ your pedigree stock for nothing. But now we cannot even sell that stock to Rhodesia. That is all we have got out of the Agreement, which is going to cost South Africa £6,000,000. The Government cannot tell me one advantage we have derived. There is no advantage in regard to mails because aircraft are going to carry the mails. We do not benefit in regard to personnel; what is 20 per cent.—if we had our own ships we could have 100 per cent. My hon. friend does not even give £150,000 to Italy.

God forbid.

Of course God forbid. I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he does not think it advisable for the sake of the country, for the sake of Parliament and for the sake of the party to refer this question to the Select Committee on Public Accounts and to ask them to present a report to this House.

Why do you not move it?

That is all very well, but I am a party man and I cannot move it. You cannot go against your party, though we are critics. The Labour Party could not move it. We have the party system here after all, whether it is right or wrong. But under this system we will not get any further. We should have had a Select Committee to enquire why he did not go to the Shipping Board and why those who are trying to build a bigger and better navy were not assisted and why we should not try to have our own ships and why we should do this extraordinary thing. Why this party should go out of its way to do this foolish thing I cannot understand. It is not good for the country, for the farmers, for the merchants or for anyone else except a rich shipping company in England. South Africa first! This is not South Africa first but South Africa last, and on that note I end. I have made my point. I want the Minister to tell me openly: Why on earth did he make this Agreement before he went to a Select Committee and put it before them? We govern this country, not the Ministers.

Do we?

I hope we do. Parliament wants to govern the country, but the Minister brings an accomplished fact before this House and says we must take it or leave it. He does not consult the United Party, the Labour Party or the Dominion Party, but treats us like a lot of fools by laying a’ contract like this before us now.

I think there is no doubt on any side of this House that an Agreement is necessary for carrying our mails and for other subsidiary matters, but what we cavil at is the nature of this Agreement. I think these two documents we have before us are two of the most amazing documents, from a business point of view, that have ever been laid before this House. If the Minister believes that this is a good Agreement I want to challenge him to leave this to the free vote of the House. I have sufficient faith in the sound sense of members of this House to know that if they realise the implications of these Agreements they will not hesitate for one moment to condemn these Agreements bell, book and candle. We are handing ourselves over to the Union-Castle Company for a period of 10 years. We are tied hand and foot, and that at a time when it is very necessary for us to be extremely careful about any commitments into which we may enter. In the first place I wish to draw attention to the duration of this Agreement. It is an Agreement for 10 years. It is admitted in the Agreement that the prevailing conditions are abnormal, yet this Minister expects us to agree to South Africa being tied under these very abnormal conditions, where it is difficult to foretell what is going to happen, for a period of 10 years. And what 10 years! Ten years, if one reads the signs correctly, of amazing development; 10 years of great changes and adaptations stretch before us; yet we are asked now, under the abnormal conditions prevailing at present, to tie ourselves for that period which can be so pregnant with meaning and significance for the future development of South Africa. These abnormal conditions are not conditions which lend themselves to any sane person making an agreement for a lengthy period.

Do you not want normal conditions prevailing during that abnormal period?

I was going to say this, that if the conditions at present are abnormal, why have a contract for ten years, and why have a period of ten years in which there is no provision for revision of the contract? The only concession given is in Clause 3 of the Agreement which reads as follows—

There is the admission that it is abnormal—

That is the only concession.

Why don’t you read a little further?

I will, and it will make your case even worse—

That makes it worse. I think the hon. Minister of Economic Development is at the wrong funeral; and I might say at this stage that there is one respect, at any rate, in which his agreement is slightly better than that of his colleague. At any rate in his agreement there is a provision for a change. In the Agreement of the Minister of Economic Development in this respect it is slightly bettter, but I cannot for that reason alone commend it to the good sense of this House. In his Agreement he goes on to say—

But in the Ocean Mail Contract there is no provision for termination. In other words, it is absolutely binding, and this Clause 3 is the only concession which is made to prevailing abnormal conditions. It simply amounts to this, that if the Union-Castle Company says: “We have heard your representations, but our answer is no”, that is the end of the matter. Arbitration is specifically excluded. There is no provision for the termination of the contract. The contract must run for the full period of ten years. I say that the provision of the Freight Contract would have been some improvement, but we have not got it here. In 1922 there were also abnormal conditions, and that answers the interjection of the Minister of Transport. What did the Government do in 1922? I have here a letter from the High Commissioner to the Postmaster-General, dated 19th July, 1922—

That is what they did. They did not bind the country to a ten years agreement under those conditions. They had the sense to realise that under those conditions it is unbusinesslike to do it and what they did do, and what should have been done here, is to have this contract for a short period until the abnormal conditions have more or less flattened out and one knows what one’s commitments are. But this has not been done here. They admit the fact that conditions are abnormal but they act as if conditions were perfectly normal conditions warranting their entering into this lengthy contract. That is as regards the duration of the contract, but I want to go further. If one analyses this contract, one is struck by the uncertainty of the service provided. In Clause 6 you will see that there is no certainty of service. Clause 6 is an entirely new section which was never in any of the old contracts. Clause 7 is new also. What we have in Clause 6 is this, that it is possible that South Africa, in spite of this contract, may be totally deprived of services which are supposed to be given under this contract. We are dependent on the good graces of the government of the United Kingdom. They can stop the service, and if they do so we have no recourse whatever. In the event of the British Government at any time during the continuance of this contract considering it necessary in the public interest to purchase all or any of the ships employed under this contract or to charter such ships exclusively for their services, the contractors may sell or let on hire such ships or ships to the United Kingdom Government. Now, if that is done one would expect there to be some provision for recovering damage as far as South Africa is concerned. It might have been provided that we would then expect the Union-Castle Company to pay the difference between the contract price and the price we would have to pay for chartering another vessel to carry the mails. But there is no provision of that kind. It is simply this, that they can try, if they like, to get other ships, and they can get one of their intermediary ships to carry the mails. In terms of Clause 7, if there is a total cessation of the service, all that happens is that we do not pay the full £300,000; I take it there is a proportionate reduction. But if they get some other ship, if such ship is not operated for the account of the contractors, the rates prescribed for the conveyance of mails by noncontract vessels shall be paid to His Majesty’s Postmaster-General or the Postmaster-General as the case may be. So there is no security or certainty of service. We simply have this, that if they do sell the ships or they are requisitioned, we are unfortunate. We have entered into this contract. But if this service is discontinued for this reason the contract does not end then. Oh, no. It is only suspended for a period. But we cannot make other arrangements, because there is this contract. Such cessation of service is entirely in terms of the contract; there is nò breach of contract. Clause 8 is another clause which calls for attention. It says—

That is only a provision which comes into effect twelve months after the contract has commenced. If they do it within the first twelve months we have no recourse at all. Let us proceed. Let us examine the conditions in regard to the duration of the voyage. This has already been remarked upon by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) who said that it is fourteen days, which is really a longer period than the old one. I want to point out that so far as my memory goes it was somewhere in 1893 that the old “Scot” made a record trip, and we are still, after more than 50 years, more or less on the “Scot” speed of 1893! We have apparently made no advance as regards the duration of the voyage; and we know that it is quite true that the maximum in such cases tends to become the normal. If the maximum is put at 14 days it tends to become the normal duration of the trip. Now, we know that as regards the air mail since the beginning of the war in 1939 time has been lowered by more than half. Why then, as regards the ocean mail, is there no attempt to speed up matters? Why must we still be prepared to be tied down to the figures of the “Scot” in 1893? Look at the clause dealing with the penalties for delay. There is no penalty whatever for the first twelve hours’ delay. That is in Clause 23, which is to the effect that the penalties for delay after the first twelve hours will be £2 1s. 8d. for every hour up to twelve hours, and then at the rate of £4 3s. 4d. for every hour beyond the twelfth hour up to and including the twenty-fourth hour, and at the rate of £6 5s. 0d. for every hour thereafter. But then there is this provision—

So for the first twelve hours no penalties are incurred. It is only after twelve hours that the penalty is £2 1s. 8d. rising gradually to £6 5s. 0d., and the maximum is fixed at £450. In terms of this Agreement we are paying £2,884 per trip, so if a ship is a fortnight or forty days late we can never recover more than £450. In other words, it really means that however late the ship is they are still entitled to claim 85 per cent. of the contract price. Then, if we want to speed up matters and get below the fourteen days, South Africa has to pay for it. We do not get that automatically, if it is possible. There is no attempt to say that they will try to make it faster. Oh, no. If we want it below fourteen days we have to pay for it. That is Clause 31. And if there is a failure to provide a ship at the starting point? The provision which the Minister has seen fit to include here is that there shall be no penalty for the failure to provide a ship at the starting point if the delay is less than twelve hours; so that they have twelve hours’ play at that end of the contract too. You will see that really, from a business point of view, this is an astounding document. I cannot conceive of any businessman, if this were a matter in which he had to deal with his own private interest who would have ever entered into such a one-sided contract. On one side you have all the safeguards for the Union-Castle Company but as regards the poor Government there is no safeguard whatever. The service may be discontinued tomorrow. It may be that they are late or irregular. We have a little penalty, but it only comes into force after 12 hours at both ends. Is it reasonable to expect that any person with a sense of business, who has the interest of South Africa at heart, can approve of any agreement of this nature? I am sure that if the Government allows this matter to go to the free vote of the House there will be an unequivocal reply. Let us go further. These are the new concessions, the wonderful things we get, the special undertakings by the contractors about which the Minister waxed quite eloquent. Take Clause 40. There you have first an undertaking to employ in their ships Union nationals to an extent not less than, 20 per cent. of the personnel per ship, but there is this proviso—

Here again I want to endorse what the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) said. In whose opinion must they be suitable? What is the test? I can understand a test of qualification, but is the test of suitability to be left entirely to the whim and caprice of the Union-Castle Company? Will it not be some objective test? My submission is that in a contract of this nature you cannot leave everything to the goodwill and good faith of the other party; else it would be unnecessary to enter into a contract at all, and we might just as well have said: “We will give you £300,000; do the best you can for us”. That would have had the same effect as this contract. We are thrown upon the mercy of the Union-Castle Company entirely. But if you want a contract it must be a business contract, and the provisions must be properly enshrined in clauses which are enforcible at law, and not a wishy-washy thing like this. Pious hopes are expressed but there is nothing definite in our favour. Let us go further. There is the purchase of Union products. One of the great concessions is that they will undertake to purchase as much as is “reasonably practicable”, whatever that might mean. I think they must in any case buy some produce here, if only for geographical reasons, but they will probably be the sole judges of “what is reasonably practicable”. And to continue—this seems to be a very great concession!—the Union-Castle Company are “to continue to accord full consideration to any representations made to them by the Government in the matter”. They are so kind that they say: “If you feel that you want to say something in this matter we will listen”. And that in a formal contract! I come to the other provision as to the registration of vessels in the Union. Here you will find that there are a large number of qualifications. It sounds very nice. The heading of the paragraph is “Registration of Vessels in the Union”. It fills one’s heart with expectations but how sadly are these expectations disappointed when one reads the conditions of that clause. They undertake—

There is not even an objective test. Not even “so far as it is practicable”. It is entirely in their discretion to arrange the extent that “they find it practicable”. And not only that, but it must be “consistent with their interests and obligations”. The extent to which “they” find it consistent with their obligations and interests is the only criterion. But not only are there all these qualifications, but others as well. It is only in respect of cargo vessels, and they only undertake to register “certain of their cargo vessels”. There is nothing specific here. They do not mention the number of vessels. Oh no, that must be left entirely in the air. Purely from the business and legal points of view I am trying to analyse this contract. But there is a further argument. Is this the proper way to encourage the growth of a South African Mercantile Marine, are these the only advantages that could be obtained from the Union-Castle Company, that they would take 20 per cent. of our Union nationals into employment and register certain cargo vessels here? I say this, with due deliberation, that the whole provision as it stands is just eyewash. It may just as well have said: “If the directors wish, they may do so, but if they do not wish to do so they need not”. That is what it amounts to in plain language. It is left entirely to them. They can do or refrain from doing what they wish. The question of arbitration was raised this morning. I think that discussion referred to the other agreement. I have been talking so far mostly about the Ocean Mail Agreement, but there is also the other agreement, and it was said that in regard to the wartime rates of freight, the matter can go to arbitration. I am extremely doubtful whether, if there is a lack of agreement under Section 4, as to a change in tariff rates that can go to arbitration, because the arbitration clause is fairly specific—

If there is a lack of agreement in terms of Section 4 of the contract there is no breach of the contract. If there is a failure to find a basis for the new freights that is not a breach of the contract; that is in terms of the contract. The contract has provided that they can see whether they can find agreement. It says that if there is any breach or alleged breach of the contract or concerning the interpertation of any of the conditions of the contract it shall be referred to arbitration. There will be no dispute as to the interpretation of Clause 4. We all know what it means. It means that if “A” wants one freight and “B” wants another freight, they can submit representations each to the other. If they cannot agree, that has nothing to do with the interpretation of the clause. It is only in such cases that such disputes shall be referred to two arbitrators in the Union. As far as the contract of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is concerned I say that there is also provision for arbitration in certain cases. Apparently it differs from the other contract because in this case it is provided that in the event of arbitration taking place in the Union, the Law of the Union of South Africa shall apply. So there is a likelihood of arbitration taking place in London. Is not that rather derogatory to the prestige of South Africa that in this contract with the Union-Castle Company we should be prepared to go to arbitration in London? In this respect I wish to commend the other freight contract rather, which makes it clear that arbitration proceedings must take place in South Africa. Part of this £300,000 is for the extension of the service from Cape Town to Durban; in previous contracts an amount was usually assigned for this. In the former contract an amount of £27,000 was paid in respect of this additional trip. In the new contract no specific provision is made for this additional trip. Is it necessary in view of the extent to which the air mail has superseded ocean mails, to have this provision for carrying mails from Durban to Cape Town, and if not cannot the amount be reduced? Why raise from £198,000 to £300,000 the subsidy for the carrying of this mail? I feel this matter has been approached in a very unbusinesslike way. There have been negotiations apparently with only one company; no opportunity has been taken of obtaining competitive prices from other companies. The Union-Castle Company is fully safeguarded in the case of default; its commitments are carefully circumscribed. But there is nothing of the kind so far as the Government is concerned. As I say, a lack of imagination has been revealed in these two contracts. It is as if the hon. Ministers have no faith in the future developments in air-borne traffic, as if they were prepared to be satisfied for the next ten years with the out-moded conceptions of 1924 and 1936. They fail to see the advance that has been made in these respects. I wish to move an amendment to the motion, but before doing so I wish to say this, if one considers these contracts dispassionately one must say these two Ministers are really two innocents abroad, they are really the Clarkson and Waterson babes in the Union-Castle woods, and like the other lamb of legendary history, wherever Mary—in the shape of the Union-Castle Company—went, the lambs were sure to go; she has led them up the garden path and they have followed docilely but not to the credit of South Africa. Therefore I wish to move—

I do not know what the position is in regard to the other contract, whether it is formally before the House or not. It says—

The other contract requires the approval of the House, but the second one appears to require disapproval. Who is to bring it before the House? It seems to me a point of constitutional procedure is involved which merits further attention.

We have to do that in terms of the law.

Is it not possible for the Minister to say: In terms of the law this contract is placed on the Table; but I want the vote of the House on it. I have tried to discuss certain aspects of it, but is it open to us to discuss that contract as a whole? You, Mr. Speaker, have granted us indulgence to discuss it, but as far as this contract is concerned, there is a vital difference between it and the Ocean Mail Contract, and it is a difference which merits more consideration than it has received in this House today.

I second.

I shall have to leave it to my fellow-lamb to decide whether this amendment is to be accepted, but I shall be surprised if he does accept it. The position in regard to these two contracts is this. In terms of the Post Office Act the mail contract has to be laid on the Table and has to be ratified by Parliament, but the freight contract is simply a contract which has been entered into by the Government and by no law does it require actual ratification by Parliament. It was because they were actually drafted together and are to a certain extent interdependent it was felt that it was right and proper to place them both before the House so that the House could see the full implications of what has been entered into with the Union-Castle Company and, in the case of the freight contract, with the Conference lines as well. Hon. members opposite in dealing with the freight contract, which the hon. member for Faure-smith (Dr. Dönges) did not deal with, have all opposed it, and I could not help feeling that in opposing it they were rather acting on the lines that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose. In regard to the mail contract the hon. member for Fauresmith, with his acute legal brain, proceeded to deal with it from a purely legal point of view, quite correctly from a purely legal point of view. But, Sir, in regard to both these contracts the position is that from the very nature of them it is, I would say, humanly impossible—even assuming lawyers are human—to draft contracts of this nature which in practice will be foolproof if either side were not genuinely intending to carry the contracts out.

It is not foolproof but foolhardy.

The criticisms of hon. members on the other side have to a large extent been based on the assumption we are dealing here with a set of unscrupulous people who are out to do down the Government of the country and the people they are seeking to serve in this contract. If you take that view I agree these contracts are useless, and I say any contract we drew up however scrupulously it was drafted and however meticulous the detail would place us in the same position.

Why have that contract if you have this implicit faith?

The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) started off by saying the first thing that occurred to him in considering the past contract was who had benefited most by it, and he then proceeded to say that because the Union-Castle Company was, in his words, a highly profitable concern making large profits, he concluded that the freight contract was more in favour of the Union-Castle Company than of the Union, and therefore it was not in the interests of the Union. It seems to me to be a very fallacious argument to use, even supposing those facts were right. I do not know where he got his facts, that the Union-Castle Company in recent years have made enormous profits. Those enormous profits are not reflected in the price of their shares or in the size of their dividends. That they are a good business concern, and that they have built up a good reputation for efficient service and thereby placed themselves in a sound financial position I do not doubt.

One of their chairmen got two years some time ago.

That is perfectly true, but I do not think this is the place to enter into that particular case. It is, however, well known, and the hon. gentleman knows as well as I do, that the gentleman referred to had nothing to do with the Union-Castle Company except that he eventually acquired it and by doing so placed them in a very difficult position from which they have now recovered. I want to refer particularly to the freight contract, and I should like to start by referring to the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals), who started this debate, because he tabulated the objections taken to this contract, fairly clearly, and I think in dealing with these objections I can also deal with the others that have been raised, because they fall under the different heads he stipulated. He said he had no objection to a freight agreement; he agreed it was necessary, that we needed something of the kind, but he required certain conditions to be observed before he could feel it was a sound contract. And I think the hon. member for Humansdorp took very much the same line this morning. He first of all said that the first requirement of a contract is that it should be economically sound, by which I take it he meant that the contract we are going to provide should get the services we require at a price that can be considered reasonable. In other words, that we should get our money’s worth. I maintain under this contract we are doing that. This contract follows very much on the lines of the 1934 contract. The alterations are all improvements from the point of view of the Union Government and the Union shipper, and no hon. member opposite has pointed out in what respect it is any worse. They have raised queries.

Have you no ambition?

I think we have moved forward; I think it is an improvement. They ask why we should conclude it now, in these abnormal times, and why we should leave the question of rates to the future.

Yes, a blank cheque.

A blank cheque is what they call it. What elese could we do?

Make it for two years.

They ask: How could we make a final contract at a time like this, and why should we do it now at all? The reason is this: We only have to consider what we want. In this contract we are looking for a fast, regular commercial service, not only mail but freight as well, and hon. members opposite must surely realise how urgent it is for us at the earliest possible moment to restore that fast freight and mail service as well as cargo service for our merchants and manufacturers. We require regular freight for their perishable products, and hon. members opposite in their criticisms have overlooked the fact that every clause of it was scrutinised by the Perishable Products Export Control Board to see that it met the needs of the primary producer in this country. Also we want special rates for Government purchases, and at the same time we want to be assured that those Government purchases will reach this country with a minimum of delay. We have got all this in this contract, but the reason why it was necessary to come to a conclusion now is that the special fruit boats which were used very largely with the mail boats to carry our fruit abroad before the war have been sunk, and the contractors very reasonably said, in effect: Before the war we had this trade under an Agreement with you, we built these boats specially for your trade, they are lost, we shall have to replace these boats if we are to continue to do that trade, and if we are to replace them the sooner we place our orders the better, and from your own point of view if you want that refrigerating space available as soon as possible after the war we naturally want to place the orders so as to have the boats ready for you, but if you have any other ideas and we are not going to do that trade, naturally we do not need those ships. So the advisability of concluding a definite contract at this stage was to enable the contractors to prepare themselves at the earliest possible moment to restore the normal services to this country that were guaranteed before the war. Hon. members have complained about the non-fixing of freights. At the present moment, of course, we cannot fix the freights because in the first place the Union-Castle Company has no control at all over its freight rates, nor has it control over its ships; it is all done by the Ministry of War Transport.

What has that to do with fixing of freights?

If you have not a ship to carry the goods in it is not much good fixing the freights. Both freight rates and ships are controlled by the Ministry of War Transport, and that is why we had to leave the final question of fixing the freights to a later date. The reason why we agreed to the rates prevailing in January, 1927, being taken as the maximum freight they can fix for merchant cargo is that in the opinion of all our shipping advisers in the country that was the most favourable year for Union freight, and considering the way freights have gone up since, we are quite satisfied if we get freight rates down to where they were in January, 1927 we shall indeed be extremely fortunate. But as soon as their ships are returned to the Union-Castle Company and they are free to discuss freight rates with us we shall start negotiating on the basis of the freight rates in the old agreement, and then we shall discuss the question of arriving at an agreed freight rate which in terms of the contract can be re-discussed and reconsidered and re-agreed from time to time as conditions permit. I would say using the expression “wartime freights” in the agreement strengthens the case when discussing freights, because it emphasises the fact that the rates we are applying today are abnormal and cannot be considered as a basis for permanent rates. They agree they will not raise the freights above the rates prevailing in January, 1927, and these are the lowest we have ever had. In addition to that there are considerable improvements in detail in this present freight agreement. We have, for instance, added considerably to the number of articles we can carry at the basic freight rate. That basic rate amounts to a saving of anything from 25 to 30 per cent. to the Government in respect of its importations. I do not want to go into all the details, but I shall give one example. In one 12-month period before the war the railways alone imported something like 388,000 tons of railway material, and under the freight agreement they paid £633,000 in freight. If they had been paying normal freight rates they would have paid £l½ millions, so on railway freight alone that year by’ reason of our having a freight contract there was a saving of something like £900,000 to the Government. I only mention that to indicate that by increasing the list of the goods which can be carried at the basic rate we are increasing very substantially ….

How do you make that out? You would have a cheap rate if you had competition between five and six lines.

I make it out this way, that the big customer always gets the best price, and do not forget that the merchants’ rate is fixed by the Conference lines in competition.

Where is the competition in the Conference lines?

The hon. member is contradicting himself. If there is competition then the Conference lines freight rates are fixed to meet competition, and once they are fixed the Union-Castle Company gives a rebate under the contract of 25 to 30 per cent. under the competitive price. If there is no competition the whole argument of the hon. member falls away. But in addition to that in Clause 23 there are distinct advantages to the Union manufacturer which have not appeared in previous agreements. In Clause 23 (b) the contractors agree they will not reduce the protection afforded to Union industries by their normal freight rates outward from European berth ports in respect of goods manufactured in the Union by reducing freight rates in such a way as to prejudice the manufacture of similar articles in the Union.

Who has to decide that?

The contractors undertake not to do it. If we think they are doing it we shall point it out to them, and if there is any dispute the matter will go to arbitration. In 23 (c) the contractors further agree that during the continuance of this agreement they will maintain a reasonable margin between the freight rates on important manufactured products and raw materials required for the manufacture of similar products in the Union. This is a most important guarantee for Union industrialists because it ensures them the benefit of the margin of protection afforded by freight rates. Again, in 23 (d) we have an undertaking—

What is the meaning of “normally not be less”; who is going to decide?

There is such a thing as being reasonable. There is even such a thing as perhaps the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) can imagine of two people agreeing that each can be reasonable. I have no doubt both sides will agree to being reasonable, and if not there is provision for arbitration in the last resort. There is also provision for giving 18 months’ notice for dissolving the contract. So the country is well protected. Then the other point raised by the hon. member for Ceres and mentioned by the hon. member for Humansdorp was that this contract is of a monopolistic nature. This contract is no more monopolistic than the old one. The hon. member for Ceres who protested so strongly may have forgotten that at the time of the concluding of the 1934 Agreement he was chairman of the Shipping Board which concluded the Agreement. For him to get up now and complain about these things seems to indicate he has a poor memory. But in practice where you enter into an agreement of this nature it is in effect giving the sole right to the other party just as they give the sole right to you in the Agreement. To that extent you can call it monopolistic if you like, but it is not monopolistic in the sense that it is being done to the detriment of the customer, which in this case is the Union.

It will still be a monopoly.

No. What we want is regular shipment to and from the Union of our goods of various kinds. To us it is immaterial what bottoms they go on, so long as that service is regular, sure and reasonable. In this Agreement we have made this arrangement, and as far as the rates are concerned they will have competition, so I see no detriment whatever to the Union in the Agreement. It is suggested we have tied ourselves to a monopolistic arrangement for ten years. I have explained as far as the freight agreement is concerned that is not so. We have made an arrangement which is lasting for ten years, and which personally I have no doubt whatever will continue for ten years.

On what freight rates?

The 1927 rates.

No, that is the maximum. As soon as the Union-Castle Company has the ships these will be fixed. Finally, the Union, if it is felt we are not getting a square deal, has the right to terminate the contract on 18 months’ notice, which is very short notice in a contract like this.

That is after ten years.

No, if the hon. member will read the contract—and I advise him to read it before he speaks in this House— he will find that notice may be given at any time.

It must be given at the 30th June.

No, read Clause 3. The hon. member for Humansdorp suggested that the Union-Castle Company under this Agreement would be able to dictate what ships from other countries would come here. I admit that I cannot follow his argument. There is nothing in this contract to prevent ships, from any country, coming to the Union ports and bringing anything they like, and there is nothing to prevent them from going back to any other port in the world carrying goods from this country. But as far as Government goods are concerned, the Union-Castle Company has the first option to carry goods from European ports. If we buy railway engines in Europe or timber from Sweden it is highly probable, if the Union-Castle Company has no ship there, that the Union-Castle Company would nominate a ship from some other company to bring the goods here, so it is quite untrue to say that this Agreement limits the right of any country to send their ships here and trade in the freest possible way. The hon. member also stipulated that there should be room for the development of our own services. I suggest that there is ample room for the development of our own services in this contract. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) spoke about the future of a State shipping line. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) quoted from the General Botha report and their recommendation to build large passenger ships and so on. At the present moment, as far as I am aware, it is not part of Government policy to develop a large State shipping service. At the present moment we have a certain number of railway ships which I understand are likely to be increased, but I understand that it will be many years before they can lift 12½ per cent. of the Government’s importation, and if during the period of this Agreement we come anywhere near 12½ per cent. of the importation of the Union Government and of the railways into this country, I shall be very surprised indeed, and I shall feel that we have a very substantial mercantile shipping service, but if we do and we find that this stipulation of 12½ per cent. is in any way limiting Union shipping it is always open to us to see that that percentage is increased. My own view is that 12½ per cent. is more than ample cover for any development of our Union shipping services in the next ten years. If hon. members would just work out what 12½ per cent. of the tonnage means they will see in effect that it is no bar to the development of our own shipping services if we wish to do so. In the same way the hon. member for Humansdorp referred to the development of our own coastal traffic. There is nothing in this contract to interfere with the development of our own coastal shipping.

There is nothing to prevent it but there is nothing to protect it. If you subsidise a ship from Cape Town to Durban how can the unsubsidised ship compete?

The hon. member talks about coastal shipping. I think he is mixing up two things. Coastal shipping, as I understand it, is chiefly concerned with conveying Union goods from one port to another.

What about the Australian coastal services?

The Australian coastal service is not a happy example to take because it is not altogether a success. If you are going to say that all goods brought under the freight contract should be offloaded at Cape Town and then transhipped to Union coastal shipping, you will be laughed out of court by any business concern.

It was done by Australia.

The hon. member for Humansdorp suggested it and so did the hon. member for Ceres (Dr, Stals) the other morning. He suggested that this contract interfered with the development of coastal shipping and I submit that it does nothing of the sort.

That is what they do in Australia.

There is nothing to prevent the development of our coastal shipping as hitherto, or on greater scale, but to insist that goods being brought from Europe by any company, never mind the Union-Castle Company, should be off-loaded at Cape Town and then transhipped to local shipping is a suggestion that no one can entertain for a moment. The last point which was made was that under this contract provision should be made for the best distribution. The hon. member for Humansdorp and the hon. member for Ceres suggested that under this contract and because of this contract, we were being compelled to send our goods to Great Britain. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) made the same point. He complained that under this contract, from the point of view of perishables, we have to give due notice, and he said that we might in these circumstances lose our markets. The hon. member for Humansdorp suggested that we will be compelled to ship our stuff to Great Britain.

I did not say compelled.

I forget the exact words, but he suggested that as a result of this contract, there would be very strong pressure. That is not so. That is another advantage in this freight contract as compared with the old one. In the old contract we did refer vaguely to European berth ports. We now specify all the ports in Europe, and this contract provides that the contractors will convey our goods to any of those European berth ports. We are perfectly at liberty to send them where we like, and the contractors have no say what sover as to where these goods go, and similarly we are free to import our imports from any country we like and to suggest that this contract in any way brings undue influence to bear either on the exporter from this country to force him to send his goods to Great Britain or that it will compel the Government to place its orders in Great Britain is completely wide off the mark and completely inaccurate. So far from being impressed by the arguments of hon. members opposite, I am more than ever satisfied, if that is the best case that can be put up against this contract, that we have here a good, safe, business contract which meets our needs under reasonable conditions, always remembering that we are dealing with a responsible party which has in the past rendered satisfactory services and kept to the terms of every contract scrupulously, and I believe we have adequate safeguards in the very unlikely event of the contract turning out in any way we have not foreseen, and in the circumstances, I do not see what better contract we could have made, and I hope the House will accept it.

†Mr. BURNSIDE; I am not so sure that the Minister of Economic Development has helped his colleague in so far as the Ocean Mail Contract is concerned. I think possibly the hon. Minister might have done better if he had left his speech until his own vote of Economic Development came along, and if he had then shown us the relationship between the freight contract and his ideas of economic development. The first question I want to ask the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is why the Ocean Mail Contract is entered into at this juncture. I presume this contract has not been entered into within the last few weeks. The negotiations must have been going on for the framing of this contract long before the war in Europe had ended at all, and it seemed rather peculiar to me at a time when we have been very short of shipping in South Africa, when even the most optimistic of us did not know just how and when the war would end so favourably, that the hon’. Minister could spend the time from his multifarious duties and that the Union-Castle Company should spend some of their time, apart from the duties which I presume they should have been exercising, in other words, seeing that their ships made the greatest possible amount of war effort, to have entered into this agreement. Here we now find ourselves faced with an accomplished fact which is apparently going to last for ten years from 1947. I have raised the question of shipping even this Session in this House; various other members have raised the question of the future of South African shipping and we got no reply from the hon. Minister whatsoever. But quite suddenly he produces to the House, as a conjuror taking a rabbit out of his hat, this Ocean Mail Agreement with the Union-Castle Steamship Company. The hon. Minister has all of a sudden got a very high opinion of the Union-Castle Company. He says it is a thorough sound business concern. Of course, it is a thoroughly sound business concern. So sound that in the days when other shipping companies in the world were losing money, the Union-Castle Line was making money. They happened to be on a good wicket, and they happened to have so arranged the shipping round the borders of this country that they were on a good wicket. When every other shipping company in the world during the days of depression was showing gigantic losses, the Union-Caste Steamship Company was showing profits. If my memory serves me correctly, the Minister of Economic Development is wrong. The chairman who did go to prison was the chairman of the Union-Castle Company and it was because they took over another company, or it may have been the other way around. The point was that in the days of the depression South Africa was undoubtedly the best field of speculation for any steamship company in the world, and here we have an agreement which nobody has asked for, an agreement entered into at a time when the Union-Castle Company themselves admit that they have not got a single ship to put on this line. Here we have an agreement which nobody has asked for entered into at a time when the Union-Castle Company has no ships, when they cannot fix any rates, and yet we are asked here today to ratify this agreement for a period of 10 years. I am rather suspicious that the first purpose of the Minister in entering into this agreement at this stage was to stulify and to get in first and prevent any agitation for State-owned ships in the Union of South Africa. I am satisfied that the whole idea of rushing this agreement is to prevent such an agitation. After all said and done, surely there will be no harm if I moved, even at this stage, to say that we will not ratify this agreement, but that we will refer the agreement back to the Government for further consideration. As a matter of fact, that has more or less been moved by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). The Union-Castle Company has no ships to give us, so why this particular hurry in bringing forward this contract during a Session when we are already overburdened by work, when we have already got enough to do. Why does the Minister not get up now and accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) that this agreement should be referred to a Select Committee. We have plenty of time next Session to discuss this agreement. There is no particular reason why it should be pushed forward now. I should like to see it go to a Select Committee, if only ‘to allow the Select Committee to discuss with other shipping lines what possible agreement can be entered into. We know that the Ellerman Bucknail Line has floated a company in South Africa. We know that the Ellerman Bucknail shipping line has bought a considerable number of hotels in South Africa. We know that the Ellerman Bucknall Line is seriously interested in South Africa, and they are prepared to invest money in this country. I presume they are also prepared to build ships, and it may be that they may give us a very much better agreement than the agreement we have now entered into. I want to ask the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether his Department consulted any other shipping lines.

Or called for tenders.

The Minister refuses to answer, but that is a question which we are entitled to ask. It is no use the Minister coming before us and giving us an agreement and then refusing to reply to our questions. I want a reply to that question, and I am going to keep on asking that question until I do get a reply. Did the Minister consult other shipping companies?

I will deal with that when I reply.

The Minister need only say “yes” or “no”. If the Minister wants to behave like a child I cannot help it. I must assume that the Minister did not consult any other shipping companies, and how comes it that after four years of war, because this must have been going on for the last year, when the whole of the shipping of South Africa had been eliminated, that in his ideas for a mail contract he was only prepared to consult the line which had served the Union of South Africa before the war. This is not an attack on the Union-Castle Company. I actually disagree with the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) in his suggestion that the Union-Castle Company did not give us reasonable passenger fares before the war. I believe that on balance considering the services given, their fares were just as reasonable as the fares of any other company, so I am not concerned with attacking the Union-Castle Steamship Company as a company, but I have heard so much from hon. Ministers, particularly from the Minister of Economic Development, about the great virtues of competition under private enterprises—and the other day the Minister of Economic Development after listening to a violent speech by the retiring president of the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce, in which he advocated private enterprise and competition almost to a degree of nakedness, got up and said that he had never listened to such a brilliant speech and forsooth he agreed with every word of it—if that is his policy as Minister of Economic Development, then I am afraid this country is in for a very poor time. Possibly the Minister only made that statement in an exuberant moment.

I did not even say it.

The “Cape Times” said that. The “Cape Times” said that the hon. Minister agreed with it and congratulated the retiring chairman on the speech, and that speech was a justification of private enterprise free and naked. The question of competition has not entered into this contract at all because only one company was consulted. Even in connection with the freight rates we know that before the war the German lines and the Italian lines were portion of the Conference line and that the freight rates were laid down particularly by the Union-Castle Company and there was no free competition in freight rates to the Union of South Africa.

And there won’t be now.

Furthermore, one important point which the Minister of Economic Development forgets, is that not only are we subsidising the Union-Castle Company in respect of carrying mail—and then it is only a minor part of the benefits which we are conferring upon them because one knows that any company which is given the status of a mail company is always in a far better position as far as passenger traffic is concerned; we know that they have a status given to them which gives them a financial benefit even beyond the subsidy paid to them by the Government — but the Minister of Economic Development in his Agreement agrees that all the importations which the Government brings from Europe shall be carried by the Union-Castle Company or ships which they themselves nominate. In other words, they are going to get a complete monopoly. Not only do they get a subsidy for carrying mails but they are guaranteed a complete monopoly of every importation on behalf of the Government from European ports. And what do we get for that? Let me just emphasise what has been said by my colleague, the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne). After all, the Union-Castle Company is not bringing imports from Europe to South Africa for nothing. They are not carrying mails for nothing. They are not building ships for nothing. All these things are being done with the purpose of making profit. Despite what the Minister of Eeconomic Development said, these profits are very considerable profits indeed. None of these things are being done for nothing. On that side of the ledger everything is being given to them by the people of the Union of South Africa, and what do the people of South Africa get in return? Three particular paragraphs of complete and utter indefiniteness. Three paragraphs which actually mean nothing, three paragraphs attached to which are no guarantees whatsoever for the people of the Union of South Africa. First of all, the Union-Castle Company is going to employ in their ships Union nationals to an extent of not less than 20 per cent. The hon. member for Germiston emphasised the insertion of the word “suitable” and he made the point that we would see to it that any Union nationals applying for jobs on those ships would be qualified. That would be the job of the Union of South Africa; and the hon. member suggested that the word “suitable” should be eliminated in case there may be some other meaning attached to the word “suitable” but I am inclined to think that the Union-Castle Company is not likely to get applications from anything like 20 per cent. of Union nationals, because the particular clause goes on to say—

We know that even in war time we do not expect our South African men and youths who are seconded to the Royal Navy, to serve in the Royal Navy at the same rate of pay as is paid in the Royal Navy and we are making up the difference between the rate of pay paid by the Royal Navy and that paid by the South African Naval Services, which is a considerable difference, and I cannot see that the Union-Castle Company is giving anything really worth having to the people of South Africa by agreeing to employ 20 per cent. of their personnel from the Union, because I do not think they will get applications at the rates of pay which are usually laid down by the British Mercantile Marine. I cannot see too many South Africans being prepared to work for those rates of pay. It would be stupid if I suggested any differential rates of pay; it is quite probable that it is impracticable, but quite apart from the fact that it may be impracticable, or that it may be stupid of me to suggest it, the fact does remain that the Union-Castle Company is not likely to attract a suitable type of South African at the rate of pay they pay in conformity with the rates laid down by the British Mercantile Marine. We know that the average rate of pay for Europeans in South Africa is certainly much higher than the rate of pay applicable in the British Mercantile Marine.

They have a number of South Africans now.

In war conditions there are many South Africans in the British Mercantile Marine. I know many men who have taken it upon themselves to join the Mercantile Marine because it is their contribution to the war effort. They are not going there to earn a living. They are going there to contribute their portion to the war effort, and in many instances they are men who could not get permission to sign on in the Navy. I am satisfied that in the post-war period there will be no rush on the part of South Africans to join the Union-Castle Company ships at the rate of pay laid down by the British Mercantile Marine, not if the Government lives up to its promises and gives us the jobs in South Africa which we are supposed to get, because if that happens, I am sure that South Africans are not going to work for the Union-Castle Company. So I do not place any reliance on this clause. Then again, as my hon. friend has pointed out, Clause 40 (ii) says—

I have travelled once or twice before the war in Union-Castle Company ships and I have always noticed that far and away the largest proportion of all the produce used were of English production or of English manufacture. You certainly could get South African cigarettes and South African beer and South African brandy aboard ship, but these are more or less luxuries. For the most part the greatest part of the victualling of the ships is done by British merchants. I have travelled once or twice on them; I am not a fair voyage traveller like the Minister of Transport, our Commodore of the South African Navy, but from the little I have seen of these ships, I have concluded that most of their purchases were from Great Britain and for the very good reason that the goods in Great Britain were cheaper, and so I agree with the hon. member for Germiston that this particular clause is, in my opinion, not worth the few lines of print that has been expended on it because it gives us no guarantee. It is no use the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs heaving a sigh, he is not on a Union-Castle Company ship now, he is in the Union House of Assembly. There is no guarantee here.

There was no guarantee before and they purchased for nearly £100,000 a year.

That is very little.

I think if they purchased for £100,000 a year before the war, I am quite satisfied that if they wanted to give the Union of South Africa a square deal, they should have purchased goods to the value of £500,000. That is my challenge and it still stands as a challenge. They should have purchased far more; and let me now go on to the real crux of the matter, i.e. sub-paragraph (iii) which deals with ship repair work in the Union. I will say this to the hon. Minister and I defy anybody to deny it, that they never had a bolt or nut or screw fixed in this country if the ship could go back to England to be repaired there, and it very nearly cost Great Britain her life in this war. But for this policy of having ship repairs done in the country of their origin, we would have had a thriving and fairly extensive ship repairing industry in this country at the outbreak of the war and there would have been no necessity hurriedly to improvise at the outbreak of the war, and I still feel that South Africa managed so quickly to improvise a shipping repair industry in this country that probably when history comes to be written it will be found that Egypt and Alexandria were saved and that the battle of the Mediterranean was won because of the efforts of the South African artisans who so quickly adapted themselves to the work of repairing ships. Although it was well known that South Africa was one of the most strategic parts of the world, her importance as a strategic point was overlooked in the interest of profits and we had no ship repairing industry at the outbreak of the war. Now what does this mean? What can anyone really read into this, “to utilise ship repair facilities so far as conditions under which vessels are operated make this practicable”? Who is going to be the judge of that? Of course they may say it is not practicable for them to have it done here and they must take it to England. The Union-Castle Company are apparently the only judges of that. We, having built up a ship repair industry in South Africa and having contributed thereby enormously to the winning of the war in the Mediterranean, and being faced with the return of 20,000 of our boys from the North who have all had engineering experience of some degree in the army, 14,000 of whom have been through the Cott scheme, and having to find jobs for them, accept a clause which says that they will utilise shipping repair facilities in the Union as far as the conditions under which the vessels are operated make this practicable. Now, I want to move a further amendment—

As far as I know the Union-Castle Company’s trade with any other part of the world is almost negligible. They are a company which for many years now has concentrated their trade on the Union. If the South African trade is taken away from them they will have to find another route or probably go bankrupt. In other words, the whole prosperity of this company depends on this trade with the Union. They cannot make a living or profits but for the Union. They certainly do render services to the Union, but it is the service which dozens of other companies would be only too anxious to render. [Hear, hear]. As a matter of fact shipping companies today are like wolves at the door. They are all rushing after contracts of this description. They rely on what we give them whereas from the courteous point of view we may say to them: “You have been efficient and rendered this service well”, but owe them nothing, whilst they owe us everything. They owe us their life’s blood. They owe us the whole financial position of their company, their profits and their rights to existence. Surely, that being the case it is not too much to ask them that 50 per cent. of their shipping repairs should be done here.

Can we do it here?

We repaired 40,000 ton battleships during the war. We do not want to build ships here. As a Glasgow man I must say we can still have that done in Glasgow. But why can we not have 50 per cent. of the total overhauls done here? My hon. friend who is the member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander), which is now provided with a new dry dock to rival Durban, should think of the future of his town. Durban had one of the biggest dry docks in the southern hemisphere, but I can never remember, in the 17 years I lived in Durban having seen one Union-Castle ship in the dry dock there. Even when they needed painting the ships’ crew did it themselves. And the same applies to the other countries. They are all alike. They would have nothing done in South Africa. But I suggest we are not asking too much when we ask that 50 per cent. of the ship repairs should be done here. They can arrange for 50 per cent. as it suits them. If there are certain operations, like the complete overhaul of their ships, which has to be done every so often, which is best done in Britain, they can do so and can balance up the other 50 per cent. with minor operations, but I am satisfied that the Union-Castle Company can do it if they really have to, instead of having this unfortunate Agreement which for the life of me I cannot understand the Minister having accepted, because he has heard this argument before in this House from me and my colleagues. I do not know why the Minister of Economic Development did not pay some attention to it when he was dealing with the other section of the Agreement, because surely as the Minister of Economic Development he must realise that this is one of the most far-reaching and work-giving secondary industries. We have been doing so much ship repairing that the Controller of Manpower for two years now has had to order engineers from all over the country to proceed to the coast. So many were sent to Durban at one time that there was not sufficient accommodation for them and the Controller had to cease sending them there. Whilst for security reasons we have not got the full figures of how far the ship repairing industry has actually progressed here, we know that it has probably progressed more than any other branch of the engineering industry. I call it a branch of the engineering industry because it mainly is, although it does employ people who are highly skilled artisans in other work also. I feel we should say: “Never mind these general phrases; never mind these good boy promises.” The Minister of Economic Development gibed at the member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) for having more or less stated that the Government were dealing with a crowd of sharks. I think that was an exaggeration on the part of the Minister but I have never yet known a company or a businessman who was an altruist. I have never known them refuse to make 100 per cent. when they could, and when they thought you were mug enough they would hold out for 110 per cent. That is not called being a shark, but being a sound businessman, and the poor fool who gives them 100 per cent. because he is what the Americans call a sap—not a S.A.P.—is left holding the bag. I say that we will not get anything out of any company that we do not squeeze out of them and therefore it is the bounden duty of the Government to get everything they can out of them. It is no use the Minister telling us that he has got the best possible Agreement or even a good Agreement unless he can show us that he has the best Agreement he could get, and in order to do that he will have to show us what other companies he consulted, and what tenders were submitted and what were the conditions under which they were prepared to accept the contract. I am quite satisfied that he cannot do so because I am satisfied that he did not consult anyone. As a matter of fact I do not think he even thought of doing so. Let me get to another point. The Government of which the present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is a member—and I think at one time the Minister of Transport was also a transient member without a Portfolio—gave an Italian company £150,000 per annum for three years. The contract was signed but not in operation when the Fusion Government came into power. It was paid for the puropse of finding markets on the West Coast of Africa. Just how two of the finest tourist ships in the world at that time were going to find markets up the coast is not clear, but one thing the Italian line did, and that was to run a fast nonstop service from Cape Town to Durban. There are many people in this country who want that, and I presume that even the hon. Minister will not want us to believe that he is only concerned with people who have the money to go overseas, but that he is also concerned with those who want to go on a trip round the coast, and who probably prefer to go from Durban to Cape Town by sea rather than by train. Possibly the Minister might consider that many of us do not want to spend three-quarters of a day at East London and a day at Port Elizabeth. One knows that ships have to stop for cargo there, but from the purely passenger point of view the great popularity of the Italian ships was that they did a fast non-stop run from Cape Town to Durban. In the July Handicap season they did a fast non-stop run from Cape Town to Durban. On Sunday afternoon they went to Lourenco Marques, and then returned. I only mention it because my argument is that the Union-Castle Company should also provide us with that, or else the Minister must do it under State aegis. The Italian lines gave one an opportunity of seeing the races and having a nice trip for 14 days whereas the Union-Castle Company made no such provision, and it seems to me that something of that description must be done. In prewar days if one had to go from Durban to Cape Town by train it took three nights and the Union-Castle Company stopped for three-quarters of a day at East London and a full day at Port Elizabeth.

Why go to Lourenco Marques when you can go to Port Elizabeth?

Why should anyone want to go to Port Elizabeth especially after having listened to the nonsensical remarks of the member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean)? No wonder the Minister can enter into such a stupid contract if he has such stupid supporters. That brings me to the question of coastal traffic. I do not see why the Minister is so terribly upset about the idea of trans-shipping freight at Cape Town and taking it round the coast in our own ships, because we do today make arrangements whereby 50 per cent. of the inland traffic to the Transvaal must go through the port of Delagoa Bay, and that is fixed by the Minister of Transport and his Railway Administration, who fixed traffic rates at such a level that it is cheaper for these goods to be taken the 200 miles odd from Durban to Delagoa Bay by sea and then trans-shipped and taken by rail to the Rand. [Time limit.]

I second. I am rather sorry that the Minister did not reply to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) when he directly asked him the question as to whether there had been any consultation with other shipping companies to ascertain whether a better agreement for South Africa could not have been made. I want to remind the Minister that members of these benches have not at any time in the past sought to embarrass him in an irresponsible manner. The only occasions on which we have had to criticise the Minister have been occasions when we considered it to be in the interests not only of the House but of the country, and it is regrettable that the Minister did not reply to the question put directly to him, a question which he could quite easily have answered in the affirmative or the negative. It is surely wrong to expect any member of the House to have to proceed with an argument on an assumption which might prove to be incorrect and so waste much time; but the hon. member for Fordsburg was put into a position in which he had to assume, because the Minister refused to answer, that there had been no consultations with any other shipping companies. Now the perfectly sound argument of which the Labour Party always takes considerable cognisance is that competition is valuable to ensure that we get the best we can. Only if the Minister had given us the guarantee that there had been consultation with other shipping companies and that the agreement was reached in competition with other interested parties, would it be reasonable for this House to’ ratify the contract now before us. I agree with the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), with hon. members on the Nationalist Party benches and also the hon. member for Fordsburg that it would be in the interests of the House and the country that this measure be deferred and that it be referred back for further consideration. Before this House is really justified in ratifying the contract it should feel that it is the best possible agreement that can be had, and we can only feel that it is a really good Agreement if we are aware of the fact that other interested shipping companies competed also, because as the hon. member for Fordsburg said, there is very little concession to us reciprocally. The point about the employment of Union nationals may have some value if we think of the employment of Union nationals not only in terms of Europeans, because European standards in South Africa are such that the average European does not willingly enter the Mercantile Marine at the rates of pay available there when he can reasonably expect to get better terms of employment in the country itself. But the non-European population, in particular the coloured population, have shown their willingness and have readily adapted themselves to a seafaring life during the course of this war, and they might be employed. But what is more important—and that is the point of the amendment by the hon. member for Fordsburg—is that we should see to it that all possible work in the repair of ships should be done here, to provide employment for the many hundreds of persons who were trained during the course of this war in shipping repairs. The amendment which has been moved seems to me a very mild one, in the face of the manner in which the contract has been condemned, a condemnation of which I heartily approve, and I ask that the House approve of the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg, who is asking for something very simple in relation to the general contract. If the House is not willing to defer this matter for further consideration in order that all avenues might be properly explored, they might at least agree, and the Minister might agree, to the amendment as moved. We are entitled to expect this concession because South Africa has shown that it is capable of effecting these repairs, and we are entitled to ask that not less than 50 per cent. of the repairs be done in this country.

I am afraid that one, in all honesty, must say that the resolution which is before the House, while it is bound to be accepted because Government members will vote for it, will not be accepted with any degree of enthuisasm.

Why?

For a number of reasons which I will give you. I agree with the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) that the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside produced a paltry amendment. After roaring like a lion he became so lamblike in his amendment that he might join the ministerial lambs to whom the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) referred. One reason why I think this contract will be accepted without enthusiasm is due to the fact that it is so premature. I hope the Ministers will, in all modesty agree with me that after all they are not the depositories of all the brains of this Parliament and that an arrangement of this kind, which commits us more or less to a policy for a number of years, which is entered into on the 4th of April, according to the Agreement before us, but which must have been discussed for a considerable period before that, should at least have been discussed, if not with the whole Parliament, with the Caucus of the party which is here to support the Government. The Minister of Economic Development quite rightly said it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose and it is equally the duty of supporters of the Government to support the Government, but at least we are entitled to ask that before being called upon unquestioningly to support a measure of this kind there should have been some opportunity of discussion and consultation before we are asked to vote on something which many of us feel is unsatisfactory. Now I remember members protesting—and the Minister of Transport was one of those— when the Agreement was made with the Italian shipping line. It was made by the Nationalist Party and, therefore, they are not the right people to object to any agreement for which tenders have not been called; but I do remember that whilst the Fusion Government claimed that they were compelled to carry out that Agreement because it had already been signed, some of us—and I think the Minister of Transport was one— continuously objected in this House and criticised the fact that an agreement of such importance should have been entered into without any tenders having been called. Here we are faced with the same position. We are presented with an Agreement entered into at a time when according to the facts laid before us by the Minister even the Union-Castle Company has no control over its own shipping. Its ships, like those of other companies, are still definitely under the control of the British Government, and we do not know whether even after the conclusion of the Japanese war the Union-Castle Company and other companies will be free to deal with their own shipping in any way they like. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no immediate urgency why this Agreement should be entered into at this stage, and there is no reason why the Government should not consider the question of delaying its enforcement. The present contract still has to run to 1st November, 1947, but it is renewed now, to please the Union-Castle Company. There is no reason why this agreement should not be delayed until there is a freer market and greater opportunities of calling for tenders. I have another objection; The Government has not committed itself one way or the other on the subject of State shipping until this afternoon when the Minister of Economic Development spoke, against State shipping. On the contrary everything that has been done in recent years has indicated the desirability of developing a policy of State shipping in South Africa. The report to which the hon. member for Hospital referred of the South African Nautical College Committee, set up by the Government and consisting of very prominent men with Gen. Brink as chairman, and with Mr. Sonnenberg and Capt. Butters as members, to deal with the question of nautical training in South Africa, indicated, although at that time there was a Shipping Commission that had been appointed by the Government to deal with the whole question of shipping, that they felt they could not usefully issue a report on the subject of nautical training without also dealing with the question of the establishment of a merchant navy in this country. In that report, a unanimous report, they state specifically in Clause 25—

That committee set up for quite a different purpose found it could not report on the question of training without also going into the question of establishing a merchant navy in South Africa, and they reported in favour thereof unanimously. In addition to that we had the Shipping Commission, and the person probably most qualified to give evidence before that commission was Brig. Hoffe, the General Manager of Railways. I cannot conceive him having given his evidence without at least the connivance of the Minister of Transport, and he gave specific evidence before that commission on the question of establishing our own shipping. One of the points he dealt with was the point made by the Minister of Economic Development, that as far as cargo was concerned up to 12½ per cent. could be dealt with by South African merchant shipping. The Shipping Commission accepted that evidence, and in making that finding showed what actually happened was this. At a certain period the steamers sailing for the Union Railways were competing with the combine to such an extent that the combine said: You are competing unfairly and therefore we are going to limit you to 12½ per cent. Later, when they found even that 12½ per cent. was proving deleterious to their interests the combine used their influence—that is the finding of the commission—to get that 12½ per cent. done away with and to make provision that South African Railway steamers should not be allowed to carry goods to foreign ports, but could only bring from foreign ports goods we require. How can you possibly work a service on that basis? Therefore I am entitled to say although there is this provision there is no reason why we should not reasonably assume that the Union-Castle Company will come along and exert influence again in order to cancel that arrangement, as they did in the past. When that commission was dealing in a general way with difficulties it did not disagree with the evidence of Brig. Hoffe who, in the course of a very able statement, showed how important is was for us to expand our South African merchant navy. He stated—

He went on to say—

That is the evidence given by one of the most responsible officials in this country. Having that evidence and having the findings of a nautical training committee before us, and having regard to the fact that many of us at any rate sitting on this side of the House strenuously criticised the shipping agreement entered into with Italy without calling for tenders, the least we are entitled to say to the Government is, before calling upon us to vote on an agreement which has all the evils of that shipping agreement with Italy, and which goes contrary to the recommendations of Brig. Hoffe, and contrary to the recommendations of the Nautical College Committee, the least the Minister could have done as a matter of decency is to have consulted his own Party before entering into this agreement.

Unlike hon. members who have spoken, I wish wholeheartedly to congratulate the hon. Ministers on the satisfactory agreements that have been entered into.

There are some intelligent people.

The Union-Castle Line has served this country very well over a long period of years, and whilst hon. members have suggested they have in their years of trading with this country made enormous profits I suggest South Africa has benefited very materially indeed by the very satisfactory service they have maintained to and from this country. I would suggest that one of the best examples I can quote to illustrate the value the country has received from this contract is to compare it with the £150,000 a year subsidy which was paid to the Italian Line, and to which reference has been made this afternoon. For that figure the Italian Line provided two ships. They had no mail service to provide. They could come and go as and when they liked, and they could call at coastal ports, go as far as Lourenco Marques or make yachting cruises for the pleasure of their passengers, whereas under this contract the Union-Castle Company is bound to supply a regular service of ships leaving and arriving at South African ports at a scheduled time and date, and to arrive at a scheduled time and date at their destination, just as a railway train should run to time. As one who knows something about ships and has spent many years of his life in dealing with ships and shipping, and as one who has had something to do with the training of men for the sea, as well as being an ex-sailor himself, I claim I know a little more about the subject than some hon. members who saw the sea for the first time when they came down to Cape Town. The service the Union-Castle Company has given South Africa compares very favourably indeed with the service given by any shipping company in any part of the world, and I say that with knowledge of the world shipping services. I have travelled in every part of the world and in every type of ship from sailing ships to the “Queen Mary”. I am talking about something I understand and from my own actual experience. I repeat, the Union-Castle Company has given to this country a shipping service that compares favourably with that of any part of the world. The passenger fares also compare favourably with the fares charged by other companies. In pre-war days there was a service running to Australia by the Orient Line, for which the Australian Government paid £175,000 per anuum, one ship per month. The same thing applied with the P. & O. Company, one ship per month. I suggest in view of the figures which I have quoted, particularly the £150,000 subsidy paid to the Italian Shipping Company, the subsidy of £300,000 per annum which is to be paid to the Union-Castle Company is an extraordinarily good arrangement from our point of view, in view of the commitments to which they are bound. The comment has been made that first-class mail will, when circumstances permit, be carried by air. That may be so. But nevertheless every week throughout the year when shipping is normal, thousands of bags of second-class mail, parcels and other goods are carried in the mail ship holds and in the course of a year it represents something like 30,000 tons. That second-class mail is carried without any additional charge by the mail steamers week by week throughout the year and is delivered regularly under normal circumstances just as the daily mail is delivered in your own village from the next one.

They are getting £300,000 for it.

I suggest they are not. They are getting £300,000 for the services they are rendering the country in providing a fleet of eight first-class mail steamers, each of which is valued at £2½ millions, representing a total capital value of in respect of the eight mail steamers of £20 millions. Those ships will bring tourist traffic to South Africa and tourist traffic has a tremendous potential value to South Africa if it is properly developed. This Government has spent in England and elsewhere large sums of money advertising the attractions of South Africa, and doing everything possible to attract tourists here to spend their money. Those tourists are certainly not going to travel by air. They are going to enjoy a long and restful sea voyage, and they will want to travel in first-class ships, and under this Agreement first-class ships will be provided for them to travel by. In addition to the mail steamers the service will provide for a tremendous amount of space to be made available for perishable goods, which will be carried expeditiously to the market, and anyone who understands about the carriage of perishables, will realise how important it is to have a regular fast service from the country of production to the market. So apart from a mail service and the fact that first class steamers will be available for the passenger and tourist traffic, I submit that the provision of refrigerating space and a regular service for the conveyance of perishables will confer tremendous benefit to the country. It has been said we should insist on 50 per cent. of the ship repairs being carried out in this country. I should like to think that the time has arrived when such a development is economically possible. I would suggest that those who have put forward this proposal should consider the relative cost of carrying out such repairs in Great Britain and in South Africa. It is not at present an economic proposition to carry out such repairs here. If the Union-Castle Company had to undertake to carry out 50 per cent. of its repairs in South Africa they certainly would not have been interested in a contract of this nature with a subsidy of £300,000. Before I close I wish to speak on a question of employment. I have been associated with the training ship Gen. Botha ever since it came into existence, and we have trained a large number of boys in that establishment. The Union-Castle Company has taken a number of boys in their ships. Some of them are officers, and I hope in the near future some of them will be in command of those ships. It has been suggested the sea will not attract South African boys; that is not the case. The British rates of pay may be lower than rates in this country, but South African boys will be attracted to the sea. I am very glad to notice the Company has agreed to take 20 per cent. of suitable personnel in their ships, and the word “suitable” is advisedly used, because it would be impossible for the Company to undertake to engage 20 per cent. unless they can obtain satisfactory people. Regarding the question of discharging overseas cargo at Cape Town and trans-shipping it to another vessel for coastwise trade, anyone who understands the cost of handling cargo and trans-shipping it will appreciate how uneconomical such a procedure would be. I wish again to say I am pleased with the provisions made in these two contracts. As to the suggestion that has been made that there is no hurry for such contracts, let me remind hon. members that the time allowed is very small indeed to enable the building of ships of the type we require. Some of the Company’s ships have been sunk and others will be needed, and some considerable time will be necessary for the builders to construct ships of the type envisaged in this contract. I submit that the contract has not been entered into one day too soon, and indeed I wonder how it is going to be possible for the ship-building industry in Great Britain to provide the ships the Company will require. The suggestion has been made we should restrict shipping trade on the South African coast to South African ships. I submit that step would be very dangerous and very inadvisable. Such a procedure was adopted on the coast of Australia, and no ship not registered in Australia can carry Australian cargo from one port to another.

Nor passengers.

Nor passengers. But let me say this, it has caused considerable inconvenience to people who live in the country and most of the people in Australia with whom I discussed the matter objected very strongly to the fact they could not travel in an overseas ship if they wanted to. I myself had to leave the overseas ship while on a visit to members of my family in Australia and transfer to an Australian coastal ship. Hon. members will agree this sort of thing is very unsatisfactory and undesirable. Great Britain is the most important shipping country in the world. They maintain free trade round their coasts; any ship of any nationality can trade to and from the ports of Great Britain. I submit we in South African should maintain the same principle of free trade around our coasts, because this is the most economic and most satisfactory from every point of view.

The Minister of Economic Development said in reply to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) that he knew nothing about the matter, that he had not read the Agreement, and he told us what a wonderful Agreement it was. The Minister compared it with the Agreement made in 1924 and said it was a wonderful Agreement. He read Clause 24 of the Freight Agreement which states that the company undertakes the interests of the small shipper by carrying his cargo at the same rate as that applicable to the large merchant shipper. I asked him whether that was not in the old Agreement. He said it was an improvement, but it is not a new thing. It was in the old Agreement, which I have in front of me. It is under the same heading, but it is Clause 29 not Clause 24. It states that subject to the provisions of the Agreement the contractors reserve the liberty to reserve rates of freight as circumstances may from time to time require, but they undertake to protect the interests of the small shipper by carrying his cargo at the same rate of freight as that applicable to the large shipper. The words are practically the same. It is the very same provision. Yet that is the reason given by the Minister of Economic Development to prove this Agreement is better than the 1924 one. When you compare the two Agreements you find that though the wording is changed here and there they are absolutely identical. Such changes as have been made have not been in favour of South Africa but in favour of the shipping company. Not even the Minister can deny that this Agreement constitutes a monopoly. In fact he admitted that. He says it is a monopoly, but we do not keep any other country’s ships out of our ports, they can come and carry. What is it then, is it a monopoly or is it not? He knows as well as I do that the company has made it impossible for any other shipping company to compete on equal terms.

Very possibly as a result of good service.

I have no experience of their service, but I believe it is rottener than any other country’s. So I am told by people who have travelled. Even the service they give you from Britain to America is not as good as the service you get from America to Britain. People who have travelled by German and Italian and Dutch liners say they can get better treatment in these foreign ships. But I am not arguing about the service. If this company is given a monopoly to carry all the Government stuff, all the railway stuff and the goods for semi-Government concerns, and if such a big slice is taken out of the traffic and they are paid an enormous subsidy, how can these other people compete? This company had to come here when the shipping position was rotten. It started on a very small scale to South Africa, and it has grown to be a huge concern out of the South African trade and nothing else. We made them wealthy and strong. Look at the matter from a South African point of view. We in South Africa are prejudiced because our Government has given away a contract which has eliminated any competition on an equal basis. This contract admits that. One clause says where anybody else has goods carried at a rate of freight lower than the rate fixed here for private consumers they must carry it at the rate which is lower, the competitive rate. He says he is satisfied with it. The position is simply this. He says he can understand why this contract has been entered into two years before the existing Agreement lapses. He can understand it, and he gives the correct reason. When a contract like this is made these people can go to any country and have ships built. They can raise all the money they need with such a contract, because it is so favourable. I say there is no need to enter into it now. Actually the contract only ran from 1st January, 1934, but it was completed only in February. This contract has another two years to run. But here we enter into this new contract at a time when we do not know what conditions will be. They enter into it in haste. They do not even know what the rates will be. They say that if we cannot agree we can go to arbitration, and if we do not go to arbitration we can give 18 months’ notice and then the contract is ended. The postion is simply this, that the 1934 Agreement, although it was made for ten years, had a provision that it could be reconsidered after five years. There is nothing like that in this contract. Our birthright has been stolen for ten years. We have kept out all the competition and the Minister must not get angry when we say that looking at it from the South African point of view, the conditions should have been as favourable as possible for the farmers, for exporting and for importing, but they are not. I submit that any little company which enters into a contract for ten years would go over the whole world to find out whether they cannot get better terms anywhere. In fact, it would ask for tenders. Has this been done? They tell us this company has no ships; the ships have been sunk. If we have to make a contract now to enable them to build ships, we might have given the contract to another company. We could even give it to a South African company and they could have the ships built. In fact, they were slavish in following this agreement; the same time is settled on as applied 10 years ago. It is not even a day or two shorter. They have just followed the old agreement. After all, we do not stand still. There are improvements in shipping every day. It cannot be said that boats cannot travel faster to Britain. Of course they can, but it costs more in coal and in strain on the engines, so that they do not do it because it pays them not to. But we slavishly accept what someone did in 1934. It is about time that the members of the Government stopped telling us what Pirow did in 1934, and someone else in 1924, and someone else in 1914. Time does not stand still. We progress and when we pay what we have to pay under this agreement we can expect to get more favourable treatment, but we do not get it. I agree with the objections made on both sides of the House. I do not see why, if the Union-Castle Company make their living out of the country, which is what the position is, they should not take 50 per cent. South Africans into their service and get all their food here. After all, South Africa keeps them alive and it is no more than our due. We try to subsidise foreign countries because we wished to have a better service. Under this agreement if we want to carry wood from Sweden, these people have no regular service from there, but they have the first option to arrange for such shipping. Have you ever heard of anything like that? They would not give preference to Swedish shipping. They would get some other ships from some other company with whom they do not compete. What right have they to claim anything like that, a first option to carry stuff for the railways, etc.? If you read this contract carefully you will find that our industrial development in this country is retarded by it notwithstanding what the Minister of Economic Development said. As I said before, there is no reason for us to enter into this agreement now. It lapses on 1st January, 1947. There is almost another two years before the agreement comes into force. They have two years in which to prepare themselves. In the meantime they have this existing agreement. If their ships were destroyed and they require new ships, that should be a reason for this Government trying to get better terms than we got 10 years ago, because if they have to get ships after the war it is much easier to get them when they have a contract which runs for 10 years. In fact, the Government lias made a present of this contract and of all these rights to the Union-Castle Company. That is the position, and the Minister has not given us any reason why these changes were made. I feel that I am forced to support the amendment that the matter be referred back to the Government. I want the Minister to accept it. Let them go into the matter again in terms of what they have heard here and try to get better terms from this company. A monopoly is a wicked thing, and it leads to bad service. That has been proved all over the world. When France had the monopoly for making matches you got the worst matches in the world there. But here you enter into a contract two years before you have to but you cannot say yet what the rates will be. The war is practically over. Things must become normal. But you give these people a contract which enables them to get money to build ships. We cannot fix rates now because we do not know what they are going to be. When the agreement comes into force we will have to fix the rates. Why enter into your agreement now? It has never been done before. And I would like the Minister to read the letters. The contract which was made last time is not the whole contract. There is certain correspondence between Mr. Pirow and the chairman of the Union-Castle Company. There are four pages of letters. Has the Minister looked at these letters? Because these conditions contained in the letters were necessary for the fruit farmers, but they have been left out of the agreement. Apparently the Minister knows nothing about the letters. They were additional terms to the old contract. In all the circumstances I do not see how the Minister can expect us to accept the agreement. It is an unbusinesslike agreement which will create a monopoly. I feel that in the circumstances I am entitled to say that we are entitled to the support of members opposite who know anything about this matter at all. Any of them who read this agreement will see that our rights have been given away, rights which should not have been given away at a time like this.

We are dealing here with a most important matter, as has been shown by various members on all sides of the House. All sides have expressed their opinions and the majority of these opinions were against this contract. We all want to achieve the best results in regard to this matter, and I therefore think that it will be in the interests of the country that we should not proceed too hastily in regard to it and that we should see what the reaction of the public will be on the discussions which have taken place here. When several members on the Government side raise serious objections against a measure or proposal of this nature, then we as a House should give careful consideration to the matter, and I want to appeal to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and to the Acting Prime Minister to adjourn the debate at this stage so that the Agreement can again be discussed on a future occasion in view of its importance and the difference of opinion which has become apparent in this House; then we may see what the reaction of the country will be. It will not harm the Government to leave this discussion over for a few days, but it will be in the interest of the country if we do not force through this matter at the present stage. We have witnessed here that objections against the agreement are raised from all sides of the House. Let us therefore adjourn the debate so that we can continue the discussion at a later stage. I therefore want to move—

I hope that the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will accept this proposal in view of the importance of the matter with which we are dealing. This is not a case of obstruction on our part, but we want to afford the public outside the opportunity to express its opinion on this matter, so that the Government can reconsider the matter in the light of the views expressed by its own side.

Speaking about the motion of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), a great deal has been introduced into this debate which I will deal with in my reply. It has nothing to do with the motion before the House and I do not feel inclined to adopt the motion for the adjournment of the debate.

Motion for the adjournment of the debate, put and the House divided:

Ayes—32:

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges T. E.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss. E. R.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—67:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gray, T. P.

Hare W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson. R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard. C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to Clause 40 of this Agreement which has been mentioned. It provides that the Union-Castle Company shall—

I think that the Union-Castle Company should purchase much more produce from us than they have done in the past. There is for instance the problem of meat. I question very much whether the company has ever bought more than £500 worth of meat per annum in this country during the tenure of previous contracts. I personally have had the mortifying experience of loading chilled beef on to a ship at East London, consigned to Smithfield Market, London, knowing full well that the company would not purchase any for its own use. All their supplies had been brought from London and supplied by such countries as Buenos Aires or Brazil or any other place in the world except South Africa. I hope the Minister will insist that at any rate the amount of meat required for the homeward voyage be purchased in South Africa. By the time this Agreement comes into force meat production in this country will be much more normal than it has been during the last couple of years, and I do say this, that South Africa is in a position to produce as good quality meat as anywhere else in the world. I make this concession that no doubt they have been able to purchase the meat required at more favourable prices from other parts of the world, but the fact remains that if they are to make their livelihood from the country there should be better reciprocity in this regard. I leave it to the Minister and I hope that he will insist that such an agreement is arrived at between us and the shipping company.

I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion that has taken place in connection with the contract this House is being asked to ratify, the Ocean Mail Contract. Many matters have been discussed and dealt with. It is true that we laid on the Table the freight agreement with the Conference lines so that hon. members would know of the Agreement which was entered into so far as freight is concerned. But all this House is called upon to do is to ratify the contract with the Union-Castle Company to carry the mails from Southampton to Cape Town, and from Cape Town to Southampton for £300,000 per annum, practically half of which is recoverable from other postal administrations. That is the position and that is the contract I want hon. members to realise. For nearly 40 years, since 1912, the Union-Castle Company have been the mail contractors to South Africa, and they gave us excellent service. The amount they got in 1936 was £225,000 per annum. Is it necessary for me to try to value £225,000 in 1936 with the present value of £300,000 in 1945, particularly as the freight that was carried from 1922 to 1936 is considerably less than that carried in 1938, and the freight we will carry in 1947 will be considerably less than the freight we will carry in 1957, and we pay no more for it? The Union-Castle Company got the bulk of their subsidy when there were 150,000 mail bags. Today we have 260,000 but hon. members complain.

There will be a decrease as soon as the aeroplanes start flying.

In 1938 the aeroplanes were running, and yet the number of mail bags increased to 260,000.

Do you not expect more development in aviation?

I do not want to mislead the House. I do expect that all our first-class mail will be going by air, but I also expect that second-class mail, which represented over 30,000 tons in 1938, will increase year by year, at no expense to the Post Office for the next ten years. A great point has been made by several hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) of the fact that this Agreement has been entered into at all; they asked why it was necessary to enter into this agreement. As Minister of Posts and Telegraphs it is my duty to get a service to Great Britain started as soon as possible, and I would have blamed myself if I had not taken time by the forelock and entered into this Agreement. Two important mail boats have been sunk. They had to be replaced. They would have cost £1,125,000 before the war. Those two mail boats are going to cost £2,500,000. In other words, the Union-Castle Company has to find an extra capital of £2,500,000 for the purpose of building ships to inaugurate a weekly mail service to South Africa, and over a period of ten years we are paying them £3,000,000 of which we are going to get half back from other administrations.

So the company seems to be threatened with terrible losses.

That is the perspective that I want hon. members to take in this connection with this matter. There is nothing in this contract to prevent the Union Government from starting its own mail service; there is nothing in this contract to prevent the Union Government from starting its own postal service. There is nothing to stop other ships from coming here and doing business here. The contract which the House is asked to agree to is the one which I have entered into, and I do not see how anyone can object to an increase of £72,000 as against the amount we have paid for years, if we can get the service they are going to give us. I am speaking now for the Post Office. This is a mail contract for the Post Office. We have put into this contract certain provisions to which hon. members have taken exception, such as the employment of Union nationals and shipping repairs and things of that description. We could not pin these people down as to specific amounts. As I interjected when the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) spoke, in 1936, the Union-Castle Company bought nearly £100,000 of South African stocks per annum, and the House can rest assured that the Union Government will use all the influence and pressure that it can for that amount to be increased and the same thing applies to ship repairs. I was sorry to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Fordsburg about the employment of our Union nationals. I would much rather follow the thought of the hon. member for Wynberg (Capt. Butters) who speaks from practical experience and practical knowledge. Here is an opportunity—it does not say that the Union-Castle Company is going to limit Union nationals to 20 per cent.—at the very least to have 800 of our South Africans taken on in the Mercantile Marine. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) asked why we did not register this as a South African Company. We are negotiating with the people who have given us service for over 40 years.

And we have paid for that service; do not forget that. They have done jolly well out of it. It has not been any altruism on their part.

I am quite prepared to concede that what the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) says is correct. We have got to look ahead and make provision, and it was because we wanted this service to start as soon as possible that we entered into this contract. I do not know that this service will be started soon. At the present moment all the mail boats are controlled by the British shipping people. We do not know that the ships will be available. We hope they will be, and if they are available, this service will start, and in entering into this contract we took precautions. I do not know that I can implement anything further in connection with this matter. My colleague the Minister of ….

Of Destruction.

…. Economic Development has dealt with that portion of the Agreement which deals with the freight, but I would like to remind hon. members, that I did not simply sit down with Sir Vernon Thompson and write out this Agreement.

No, they wrote it for you.

We had the best expert advice we could get. Amongst others we had the chairman of the Shipping Board and chairman of Perishable Products Board, who are directly concerned in this matter ….

Spare us!

And the other departments that were concerned.

What a recommendation!

Notwithstanding the criticism that has been levelled against it in this House I repeat that this Agreement in my opinion, is in the true interests of South Africa, and it is an Agreement that will increase the prosperity of South Africa.

Cannot you give us something more substantial than your opinion?

Amendment proposed by Mr. Burnside put.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—36:

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Burnside, D. C.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges T. E.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Latimer, A.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludic’k, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—63:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Ciiliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson. H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Visser, H. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B.

Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—63:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman. B.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf. F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson. H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl,’ P.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Visser, H. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—34:

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Bumside, D. C.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges T. E.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein J. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. C.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

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

Original motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—60:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard. C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Visser, H. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—32:

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 177 of this House—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

This Bill is simpler than the length of the sections would indicate. It is really to deal with three points only, and two of those points are made for the purpose of redeeming an undertaking I gave the alluvial diggers and their representatives, and to members of this House speaking on their behalf. I hope, therefore, the House will have little difficulty in accepting the second reading of this Bill. I will very shortly offer a few remarks on each of these three points. The first one is this. Under the existing law a claim holder on alluvial diggings has a claim licence which exists for one month and for one month only, plus seven days’ grace in which it has to be renewed. It has occurred when a claim holder dies it has been impossible for anybody to renew that claim licence on his behalf before the lapse of the seven days, and therefore the claim licence has lapsed, and some stranger has come in and pegged the claim the deceased digger had; and the widow and the heirs have consequently been deprived of a possible opportunity of carrying on the work which the deceased normally had. This has actually occurred in certain cases, and a very great grievance has been felt in consequence. I have been asked both within the House and outside to introduce suitable legislation which will put an end to this grievance, and this Bill proposes to do so. The method proposed is to say that the executor may renew a claim licence within 30 days after his appointment which will give him ample opportunity to renew the licence and to acquire the property on behalf of the heirs; and that is a simple way of doing it. In the ordinary way the executor would never have a digger’s licence, but I propose in this Bill to overcome that by saying that the executor need not have a digger’s licence as long as the claim is not being worked. That, I think, will supply a full remedy for the particular grievance. I propose the same procedure should take place where an estate is being wound up and there is a liquidator, or where a company holds claims and the company is in course of liquidation; and therefore the first clause is couched in the terms in which it is. I think hon. members will find it completely meets the grievance which has hitherto prevailed. The next point arises from a decision of the Supreme Court, given quite recently determining that a magistrate is not a prescribed authority within the terms of the Act for the purpose of cancelling a digger’s certificate. Hitherto he was deemed to be so, and under a regulation which was published he was directed to act in that way. The Supreme Court has determined however that he is not a prescribed authority within the terms of the existing law. The magistrate has to function under the Precious Stones Act more frequently now than was formerly the case, because the diggers’ committees have very largely ceased to function. It is still possible they may be appointed and their functions will then become active, but as a matter of fact interest in the diggers’ committee has very largely wilted away, particularly after Parliament determined that no fresh diggers’ licences should be issued without the approval of the Minister of Mines, in order to preserve the diamondiferous ground for the old professional digger. We have at present no diggers’ committees in existence, and therefore if the powers are to be exercised which exist under the Precious Stones Act, and which the diggers’ committee is empowered and directed to exercise, the only way would be to constitute an administrative board under the powers of the Act and direct that administrative board to exercise those powers. It is rather a cumberous way to do it, and the simpler way to exercise those powers is to direct the magistrate to do so, and therefore in the next two clauses of this Bill the magistrate is constituted a prescribed authority and the magistrate will function in various ways. For instance, under the existing law he is made an authority for the issue of a licence, but there is no provision for the cancellation thereof, and the magistrate now under the terms of this Bill will be constituted the authority to issue and to determine the cancellation; and, further, he will be the authority for the purpose of determining a certificate of character. The actual doing of this takes up several of these sections, but their length is really rather misleading because the Parliamentary draftsman in going through it has come to the conclusion that some rather long paragraphs in the existing law had better be repealed and be re-enacted with the insertion of the necessary amendments. The only point that arises on this, I think, is whether the interests of the diggers are fairly met by an appeal from a magistrate’s decision going to the Minister. Appeals under the existing Act from a decision of a diggers’ committee went to a special ad hoc board constituted of the mining commissioner and of a police officer in the Criminal Investigation Department, and the chairman of another diggers’ committee. As I have already said, it is impossible to summon that board at the present time because there is no chairman among the diggers’ committees, or any diggers’ committees, so to function, but that provision indicates the type of appellate jurisdiction which it was thought in the interests of the diggers should prevail. Of this the House will be aware; the mining commissioner acts in terms of the law tender the direction of the Minister of Mines, and I do not think the diggers will lose’ anything whatsoever in having an appeal from a decision of a magistrate—who is a judicial officer—to the Minister of Mines. The only alternative one can think of is that there will be an appeal from the magistrate to the Supreme Court, and, as many members of the House will be able to determine from their own practice and their own knowledge of the law, it is by no means an inexpensive business to conduct an appeal from the magistrate’s court to the Supreme Court. I do not feel it would be in the interests of the diggers themselves to compel anyone who wished to revise a judgment of the magistrate to go to the expense of an appeal to the Supreme Court. It would involve him in such expenditure and in such delay as would render it almost impossible for him ever to undertake it. There is every protection for the digger in the case of a cancellation of a certificate. That is already given, because the grounds on which that cancellation can be based are very strictly prescribed. And I may say from my experience of Parliament we find if a Minister has not exercised his discretion in a judicial or impartial manner there are ample means of bringing that before the House of Assembly. I am confident the remedy would amply meet any threat that might be supposed to exist from that direction. Therefore I think the House will agree that this form of appeal to the Minister meets the necessities of the case and the justice of the case. The third point is one on which I have been asked to introduce remedial legislation by the diggers themselves, and it is this. When a proclamation of a new field takes place and claims are being pegged for the first time it is, under the existing law, quite possible for a person who has the right to peg a claim at the same time to go to the mining commissioner and to lodge with him a declaration that he intends to mark out the protective area around his claim, and from that moment he has the right to mark out a protective area around his claim where nobody else can peg, and this is 100 yards from the centre of his claim. That protective area is to be used by him when he desires to sink a shaft and to go in for deep mining—that is more than 15 ft. deep— upon his claim, so he can use the protective area for the purpose of depositing his spoil and erecting his machinery connected with deep mining. That has been found to work very considerable hardship upon a great many of the diggers. The area in which we have diamondiferous ground, as the House knows, is now very restricted, and therefore it is very desirable that the maximum amount of such ground as there is should be placed at the disposal of diggers; and it has been found that diggers do sometimes act perhaps entirely in their own interests and not perhaps with sufficient regard to the interests of others that they have thrown out of a possible area of exploitation, a considerable extent of ground by exercising this right. The remedy proposed in this Bill and which, I believe, meet the approval of the diggers in the fields themselves, is to say that this right shall not be exercised until 14 days after the claim has been pegged, and that will during that time allow others to come in and peg claims which are close in and which may be deemed and thought to have possible rich mines in them, and so the remedy is provided. Therefore as a result of this amendment the actual working to this depth and the absorption of a considerable amount of the neighbouring surface of what is possibly diamondiferous ground will be restricted to the time, after the 14 days, other people may have come and pegged this ground for the more profitable business of exploiting the diamonds themselves. There is a section here that deals with the powers of an executor or a liquidator to transfer the claims; that is really consequential on the amendment I first referred to. These are the only points in the Bill, and I now commend it to the consideration of the House.

I should like to use this opportunity to express my appreciation for this amending Bill which the Minister of Mines has now introduced. I have no doubt that the diggers themselves will also welcome the Bill whole-heartedly and undoubtedly it is a step in the right direction. For many years I have been aware of certain defects in our 1927 Act and last year I asked the Minister of Mines whether it would not be possible to introduce an amending Bill in order to protect, for instance, the family of a digger when he should die. The hon. Minister promised to go into the matter during the recess. I saw him again in Pretoria during the recess and he then told me that he would introduce amending legislation. I want to express my joy that the hon. Minister has implemented his promise and is now piloting this amending Bill through the House. In the past, as the Minister pointed out, it sometimes happened when a digger had spent a lot of money on prospecting for a good claim and when he was lucky and made a discovery, that he was exposed to the danger that if he should die, his heirs would lose everything, because seven days after his claim licence would lapse, the claim might be given to somebody else and in that way his family might be deprived of a valuable piece of land on which he had spent a lot of money. Under this Bill the diggers will be protected and I want to express my special appreciation of Clause 1 of this Bill which was inserted at my request. The Minister referred to a few matters here, and I believe that those amendments will also be welcomed by the diggers. I would have liked to have a provision that where a diggers’ certificate is cancelled, he should have the right of appeal to the Supreme Court. The man would be more satisfied if he knew that the court would decide whether his certificate was cancelled rightly or otherwise. I asked the Minister whether he would accept an amendment to that effect, but he said that he did not see his way clear to accept the amendement. He expressed the opinion that the digger will probably save much expenditure by being able to appeal to the Minister. Therefore I am not going to move my amendment. This Bill is intended to benefit the alluvial diggers and I do not want to propose an amendment which might wreck the Bill. We shall leave it at that. In regard to the diggers’ committees it is quite true as the Minister pointed out, that during the past few years the diggers have no longer shown so much interest in the election of diggers’ committees but I hope that they will again become more interested in the future. I can find nothing in this Bill which takes away any rights the diggers have. The Bill undoubtedly benefits the diggers and I welcome it whole-heartedly and hope that it will be agreed to as it stands.

I should like to ask two questions in connection with this Bill. My first question concerns Clause 2 (2) (a). Is it the intention of the Minister to create more professional diggers in future by means of this clause which reads—

Last time when we discussed this matter and when I asked what is a professional digger, the hon. Minister said that he is a person who has been digging for several years or perhaps somebody who is the child of a digger. But under this provision it appears to me as if new diggers are to be brought into being. What is the idea of it? Then I should also like to ask a question in regard to Clause 2 (3) (b). Why should a member of the detective branch be appointed on the committee? In the English text it is rather strongly worded, namely, “an officer in the Criminal Investigation Department of the Police Force”. That creates the impression as if there is something criminal about this matter. Why must it be somebody from the detective branch? Is it not casting a kind of stigma on these committees? I should like to have an explanation in regard to these two matters.

With regard to the points raised by the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink), the existing law contains exactly the same provision as is now being re-enacted in the Bill. There is no fresh reflection upon anybody by the reference to the officer of the Criminal Investigation Department. I am not proposing to do otherwise than just preserve the position which already exists under the Bill. That is a re-enactment of the position which exists now, but, as the hon. member will realise, that will not come into action and will not be used until the procedure of having diggers’ committees is again revived and comes into being. So there is nothing in the Bill which introduces anything new on that matter, neither in the one subsection or the other. I very much appreciate the words that have fallen from the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick). We have been in close consultation on these and other matters connected with the welfare of the diamond diggers, and the hon. member was good enough to tell me that his desire (if I may repeat it and take his permission as granted) that there should be a possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court was not intended as a reflection upon the present holder of the office of Minister of Mines. I appreciate that very much indeed, and., in general I would agree with him. I have told him I am very loth to prevent any appeal to the law courts. I think that generally speaking that is a provision of great utility, and I might remind him that in certain instances, notwithstanding what this Bill proposes, there will be the possibility of having revision in the Supreme Court, but that would only be when something improper, grossly irregular and contrary to the principles of justice, or something which inferred an element of fraud or want of bona fides is involved. It is only in such instances that the Supreme Court would intervene. I venture to think from my knowledge of the practice of the law courts, that it would be very seldom indeed that anything outside that would be introduced with success as the basis of an appeal, even if the hon. member’s amendment is carried. Therefore, with some confidence I put to the House what I put before, namely that it is really in the interests of the diggers themselves that the appeal should be made to the Minister.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go 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 read a third time.