I move—

This trouble-tossed Bill was all but sacrificed to the efforts of certain hon. members. I could say much more, I have much more to say, but I am not going to say it because if I do I am afraid even at this eleventh hour those same hon. members will kill the rest of the Bill. This Bill contains only about one-third of what the architects would like, only about one-third of what I am assured the majority of the members of this House want to give, but we have decided to take what we can get, to take it with thanks, and to hope for the future. We hope some day in the future, when circumstances have changed, we may be able to obtain the balance of two-thirds, some day in the future when circumstances have changed for the better, and in a place like East Griqualand they may very well change for the better.

I am sorry that the hon. member has not said the whole of what he wanted to say but I want to tell him that a member of this House must not do such a thing as was done here the other day. As introducer of the Bill he made a compromise with us. Then another member came by a back door and moved an amendment, and the hon. member said “vote for the amendment.” I should like the traditions of the House to be kept high and we should make a compromise and if the hon. member does such a thing as was done the other day then he will be obstructed much more. The hon. member does not wish to say anymore because he is afraid of us, but he need not fear us, except if he wishes to do wrong then he should fear us. We wanted to teach him a lesson.

I regret that when this Bill went through committee, circumstances were such that I could not be in the House. I congratulate the hon. member on this storm-tossed Bill. As between the Bill when it first came into the House and as it is presented today, there is no resemblance whatever, and it is largely due to the skilful handling of my hon. friend (Dr. H. Reitz), who has watched over this Bill very much as the mother hen watches over her chickens. There are one or two points in this Bill which I think the House should be warned about, and warned about very seriously before it leaves us altogether. Firstly I am in favour of protecting architects and any other body that requires a special training in order that its members may be able to follow the profession. But this Bill has gone possibly too far. Suppose some day we get ship-building in this country. I raised this question in committee. What would the architects of the ships call themselves? Under this Bill they could not be called marine architects. In Britain to-day there are architects known as chartered architects. If you go along the streets to-day you will see on the nameplate the words “chartered architect.” No person should be allowed to use any title in this country unless he is authorized by this Bill. The position to-day is this: if you walk along St. George’s Street, you will see “so-and-so, architect.” The result is that a son of South Africa will be placed at a decided disadvantage as against those from overseas. It should be put in this Bill that the man who comes from overseas should not have the right to call himself “chartered architect.” This is one thing in which we have failed. What we want is this, that Parliament should not, in any circumstances, pass legislation which places our architects at a disadvantage as compared with others. We have given protection to the quantity surveyors. What is the position of quantity surveyors? It came out in evidence that we have not a quantity surveyor outside of Cape Town so far as the Cape Province is concerned. In the Free State there is, I think, only one quantity surveyor in Bloemfontein; in the Transvaal they have them in Johannesburg and Pretoria, and in Natal they have them in Durban and Pietermaritzburg. Was it right for this House to give a protective right to a body that is not representative? In regard to this Bill you will get something like this some day—

They cannot object to that because he does not call himself an architect. I have raised my protest against this Bill although I know it is the voice that cries in the wilderness. I think my hon. friend realizes now that the youth of South Africa have not got the chance they ought to have in this Bill by the designation not being protected. I am sure that this House will pass such a. Bill so as to protect those who are born in this country as against overseas competitors.

The few words of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) almost sounded to me as the words of a solemn religious ceremony.

Which religious ceremony?

I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his extremely good fortune in persuading this House to take the third reading of this Bill. The hon. member, not by his own word of mouth, but by his friend, the hon. member for Pretoria North, sprang this little joke upon us at the report stage, and I think the Bill might have been offered up as a sacrifice, and the hon. member himself used as fuel for a burnt offering of this Bill. When I saw hon. members opposite straining at the leash and the Prime Minister trying to soothe his followers, I feared for my hon. friend and his Bill. If there is only one-third of it left it is not due to obstruction. The present Bill is a tribute to the good sense of the House, and I hope the hon. member will feel that what he has obtained is the mature opinion of this House. He hopes for changes and a possible change in the representation of Griqualand; but whatever change does come about in Griqualand and whoever voices it, they will follow the track we have already blazed out for them, I can almost assure the hon. member that the future action will continue in the same path. There is one point that did give me a bit of surprise and that was the way the amendment at the report stage was moved. The hon. member for Pretoria District (North) (Mr. Oost) said it was entirely on his own initiative, and only that morning had he drafted that resolution; no one knew about it except himself. But during the morning numerous wires were received from all over the Union telling hon. members that an attempt was going to be made to reinstate section (c) of Clause 3, which had already been deleted. Many members of the architects’ profession were in the building trying their best, and yet we heard from the hon. member for Pretoria District (North) that it was a brain wave on his part, and that he had thought of it only at a quarter to one. What brought these architects here and these wires down? I am only saying that great minds think alike. It must be that by this new system of wireless transmission; an S.O.S. message to the great brain of the hon. member for Pretoria District (North)—

The hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) was himself lobbying, and trying to get this amendment through.

I think it will not serve any purpose to pursue that any further. The hon. member must confine himself to the merits of the Bill.

As I say, I congratulate the member on having secured the permission of the House to take the third reading after the storm-tossed waters the Bill passed through.

I cannot help at the last moment saying something against the Bill because I am one of the persons who always, as much as possible, examine private Bills under a magnifying glass. I have a feeling that if a Bill is really required the Government will introduce it. The reason I am opposed to private Bills is that we have always to take such care that no injustice is done towards a particular group of people. Mr. Speaker will not permit me to quote all the evidence on this point which I have in my drawer, but I can assure the House that I have stacks of letters complaining about the rights of people being curtailed on account of the ring fences that are being drawn. Hon. members say that we are wasting the time of the House, but that is not the case when we speak against injustice. I want to suggest to the Prime Minister to alter the rules so as to have only one private members’ day a week. I think that two private members’ days a week is quite too much because they are used for trumpery little things. If the Government itself introduced Bills we should be satisfied. I am glad the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) said so little about the Bill because whenever he speaks he puts his foot into it. Therefore it is best for him to say as little as possible because the more he says the more trouble he gets. I hope that in the future we shall have many less Bills of this kind in the House. Then there will be much less work for the poor members of the House. We who stand against injustice can hardly read all the letters we receive. No one can deny that complaints are being made to-day against the Bills before the House because injustice is being done. We must see that justice is done to all sections, and must not always say “our young men of South Africa.” I love them just as much as anybody else, but I am opposed to this Bill, therefore I move, as an amendment—

I second the amendment. The introducer of the Bill only made a short speech, but it cannot be denied that a certain section is being injured by the Bill. This kind of private. Bill means that a part of the population suffers, and I am convinced that notwithstanding the amendments some people will still suffer through it. In all legislation we must bear the whole population in mind, and I am opposing the Bill, because we are in a young country which is still in the making. We have never had technical education or anything of that sort here. The people in the past have trained themselves by intuition and they are to-day doing the work. Now, the bread is being taken out of their mouths by this kind of legislation as if by magic, and they are practically put on the streets. I therefore protest against such legislation. If anything of the sort is necessary the Government must do what is necessary as it is responsible for all the sections of the population, and not a private member who of course is induced by a certain section to introduce the Bill. We must all be protected and not rob people by this kind of private. Bill of the living which they have made for years. I cannot support such a thing. There are people who have made little drawings, the whole of their lives, of small buildings erected, but now a private member comes and wants to stop it. I notice that notwithstanding the amendment of the Bill it will still injure a certain section of the population, and as long as I am in the House I shall protest against this kind of private legislation.

With leave of the House, amendment withdrawn.

Original motion then put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

I put this amendment when the Bill was in committee, but the House was tired and hungry, so the amendment did not receive full consideration

We were fed up.

We are often fed up with the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). There are many members in the public service who are perfectly competent to the members of the Society of Accountants. There are two qualifications which should govern admission to such society—first the ability to pass the examination, and secondly, practise. If men have the ability to pass the examination they should be given the opportunity to sit for it. It has been stated that the Government Auditor-General would be refused admission to this society, but a book-keeper would be able to call himself a chartered accountant, and thus be regarded as superior in the profession to the Auditor-General. The amendment authorizes the promulgation of the Bill when the society has altered its rules in such a way as to admit competent men of the categories mentioned in the amendment. Should, however, the society refuse the make the necessary alteration in its rules, it, will only have itself to blame, and it will show that they require an exclusive ring for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the public. I agree that an official who is in a good job and who is entitled to a pension should not look forward to the time when he would be able to compete with a man who is not receiving a pension. Public servants feel that they have the right to be linked up with their colleagues in their own craft, otherwise they will be regarded as belonging to a lower class. I have been in both public and municipal service, and the men in those services resent anything which marks them off as being inferior to men doing similar work in private employment. Town councils are likely to be imbued with the idea that the only men who can fill positions in the town council are men with the designation of chartered accountants. I appeal to the House to consider this seriously because it will affect some of the best men in the public service.

I second the amendment. We find to-day that persons pass the advocates examination and that they then go and work in one or other of the small villages as e.g., secretary of the school board. Even if such an individual is secretary of the school board he retains his title of advocate. We see many attorneys being admitted by the Supreme Court, but subsequently following a different profession. Although such a person does not practise as an attorney he retains his title as an attorney. If the amendment is put in then the man who works in the public service or in a municipal office will also have a chance of sitting for the examination, and of enjoying the designation of accountant when he passes the examination. Such a person can, however, remain in the service of the town council, the railway administration or another department of State, and does not compete with the private practitioners who bear the same title If, however, such a man wants to improve his position because he finds that he can earn more money if he becomes a private practitioner then he comes into competition with the other accountants, and that is what they are afraid of. In this matter, also, a compromise has been made to, but unfortunately it has not been included in the Bill, and these people are now all being left out. When the agreement was made we understood that they were included but now we find that that is not so. If it is put into the Bill it may assist the people in coming in. I cannot understand why a clerk in a municipal office should pass an accountant’s examination and be called an accountant. He anyhow does not compete and there is therefore no danger. The town council can give the appointment of town clerk or of town bookkeeper to a chartered accountant, and that will mean that he is put out of his profession. I consider that unfair. The amendment asks for such people also to be given a chance.

In connection with this question the House will remember there was an agitation to introduce a measure which would not do injustice to hundreds of men practising in the country who are fully qualified although not members of these societies. Since that time the promoters of this Bill have met many of those who opposed the measure and eventually they came to an agreement.

Where is that agreement; it is not in the Bill.

No, it is not in the Bill. As far as it is concerned I have as much faith in the integrity of that agreement as I have in any Act of Parliament because a body of men of the character of these men would not give an agreement unless they were prepared to carry it out. If the hon. member thinks this agreement does not go far enough he is entitled to continue his opposition but he cannot oppose it merely on the excuse that it was not embodied in the Bill. In view of the preamble it was impossible to include the agreement in the Bill after it was introduced. They put forward that men should be in practice for ten years and the age should not exceed fifty years. We afterwards secured a concession making five years the time that a man should be admitted after investigation and examination. There was also to be a board of appeal to which a man could appeal if the societies refused to admit him, and such a board is a very impartial one and will sit to deal with hard cases. It will function for twelve months and will then go out of existence because the hard cases will be met. A further concession was given by removing the age. Now we come to the question of the public service and municipal employees. I met representatives of these organizations the other day and I put it to them that originally I was in favour of the inclusion of town clerks, but the municipal employees have gone further to-day and it means now that every man in the accountancy department would have the right to become a chartered accountant by passing an examination if the movement is successful. I understand that in a council like the Cape Town Council there are about 30 men who are classed as accountants for purposes of appointment, and in municipalities all over South Africa practically every man employed in a clerical capacity under the town clerk would be considered an employee in the accountancy department, and after 10 years’ service and passing an examination, he would be able to secure this designation. I pointed out to the municipal employees when they were here that an argument against this particular kind of man was that at an early stage of his career a man decided whether he was going to be a civil servant, a municipal employee, or an accountant, and I thought no injustice was done to the men who were earning their livelihood by this work, and we considered we had made a satisfactory arrangement, but was it fair that a man who had been engaged in this work for many years and who had perhaps reached the pensionable age should then take his pension and set up as a chartered accountant? That was one argument. Another argument which I advanced was that if you are going to open the door to the public service and the municipal service in connection with this designation, then we must open the door to every man engaged in a clerical capacity throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. I think we must be logical and, if we are going to have legislation of this description, that legislation must lay down the terms of apprenticeship of that particular profession, or you must leave the door open, as I understand is done in many states of America, for the free examination of any man of any age who can prove that he is qualified to become an accountant. When the agreement was entered into, I must confess that the question of public servants and municipal employees had escaped my mind. I would suggest that this agreement, having been arrived at, after the promoters of the Bill met members of this House who were in opposition to this measure, the best way to deal with the matter now in connection with the public service or municipal employees or any other class of persons engaged in the accountancy departments of various public or private concerns, would be to introduce a Bill at a subsequent session of this Parliament. We are now at the parting of the ways. If this Bill is passed, it will enable young South Africans to qualify in South Africa to Become accountants without going overseas, and under it we provide an opportunity for every young South African to achieve this distinction in South Africa, and it would be doing good in that way. There is another aspect of the question that we must look at, and that is that if we make the designation too cheap, then it will not be worth the paper it is written on. Rather scrap your Bill entirely than institute a “chartered accountant (S.A.)” which, when it comes to a question of comparison with “chartered accountant (England)” or Scotland or anywhere else, will not be worth anything in the estimation of the community. I would like to see town clerks and men of that description covered in some way, but when you start on that and you deal with public servants, municipal employees and men in other public bodies, I say you must deal with the whole of the population of South Africa, who are employed in clerical work in any accountants department, whether in public or private service. Having done that you must throw the door open to the examination of any man who thinks he can qualify himself for this work.

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

I support the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) for the reasons that have been given, but at the same time, I want to see a further class of person benefit under this amendment, and that is why I move this addition. With regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), I wish to say that I have never suggested that this agreement will not be honoured. I have no doubt that this agreement will be honourably carried out by the men who have signed it, but I say it is an anomalous position to pass an Act which contains no reference to the agreement, which is the real act. I do not say they won’t carry out the agreement as contained in the correspondence, but I have never yet heard of Parliament passing legislation in this way, passing a Bill which contains no reference to an agreement which is of the most vital character, and which places upon that measure an entirely different complexion. It is said that it was impossible to put the agreement into the Bill at the stage which it had reached. For that reason the Bill should have been withdrawn, and a new Bill introduced containing the agreement which has been arrived at. That would have given us an opportunity of amending that agreement in such directions as may have been thought necessary or desirable. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) said that this Bill is for the benefit of young South Africans. We are speaking on behalf of a large number of South Africans who are excluded under this Bill. We are not against young South Africa, but we do want to help all sections in South Africa.

Who is excluded?

In the first place, every person who has been in public practice for less than five years is excluded. He may be a competent accountant, but if he has not been in public practice for five years he is excluded.

Where are you going to draw the line?

I draw the line at competency. It does not matter to me how many years a man has been in practice, so long as he is a competent accountant. Then again, the word “public” excludes many men. There are people who may, for some reason or other, have been partly doing work for a particular firm, and partly practising as public accountants. Their position is not entirely clear as to whether they come under this agreement or not. That is one of the reasons why I would have liked to have an opportunity of discussing this agreement. A similar attempt to this was made in the Irish Parliament in February of this year. They did not call it a Chartered Accountants Bill, but the Registered Accountants Bill of 1927. I must admit that in some respects the agreement does meet some of the criticisms that were raised on that Bill. One of the points there raised was that there was no appeal. The member for Brakpan has referred to the board which is to be set up as being an impartial board. That is so, but an important fact is that of the societies only three of the promoting societies are represented on that board. In view of the fact that there are other societies of accountants in South Africa, it is a great pity that they were not given a representative on that board. If the promoting societies have a right to have members on the board and there are to be members nominated by the Minister of the Interior and the university, but no direct representation is given to the other societies. There is, for instance, the South African Association of Accountants, Ltd. I was referring to the attempt made in the Irish Parliament to get a similar Bill through. It was rejected on a close division, 18 for and 15 against. What is rather interesting to me to find in connection with the debate is this: We have been told that the great idea is to protect the South African accountant against the overseas man, but I am informed that the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors in England does not make any provision for articles.

You are quite wrong.

If I am wrong I am wrong with every member of the Irish Parliament who spoke on this point. I think hon. members who say I am wrong will find it is they who are wrong. I am referring to the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors in England, and I am quoting from a letter which distinctly says that in order to become a member of the body articles are not essential. What hon. members are, perhaps, thinking of is that the South African students of the society have to serve articles, but the overseas member does not have to serve articles.

Your statement is incorrect.

It is not incorrect. The hon. member will have an opportunity of speaking later on. I can assure him that his interjection is no proof of his correctness. In the case of South African members of the society they insist upon their being articled, but they will admit men in England as long as they have passed the society’s examinations, whether they have been apprenticed or not and when they become domiciled in South Africa, they can join the promoting societies. The point I am making is that the idea that South African societies are protecting the South African against the overseas person absolutely falls away when we realise that a member of an English society can be admitted without serving articles, whereas the South African man has to serve articles. How this is protection for the South African against the overseas man I fail to see. One way in which the objecting society could be met under this agreement could be by by-laws. They point out that if a bylaw was introduced giving them the same protection as is given to the English society, then their objection would be very largely met. As far as the South African Association of Accountants are concerned, the general body of their members have accepted the agreement, and, apparently, it is only a question now of meeting the objections of these two South African branches of the Glasgow Corporation and the London Association. The agreement itself is not as clear as it might be. It begins, for instance, by saying who are entitled to apply for admission. I think it ought to be made— “Entitled to admission.” Then again it has been suggested to me that it would have been very much better if there had been three classes of accountants, your Fellow, your Associate and the certified accountant. The ten years’ man would be the Fellow and the five years’ man would be the Associate. The ten years’ man would be a Fellow and fully chartered accountant, S.A. The five years’ man would be an associate chartered accountant, S.A., and the other man could call himself a certified accountant (Cape). If such a scheme were adopted it would meet a great many of the objections of those who have been excluded from the terms of the agreement. The agreement had to be done rather hurriedly. As far as the House is concerned, it was sprung upon us. If you make these three classes you will then provide that anyone who is in bona fide practice at the commencement of the Act would be entitled to register, but he would not be allowed to call himself a chartered accountant until he had the necessary experience, but, on the other hand, he would not be left out in the cold. I have no hostility towards accountants. I think they are entitled to protection, but when you are legislating on new ground you should follow previous experience. In 1909 Natal introduced their Accountants Bill. They made provision for the future, and they recognized the rights of people then practising. In the Transvaal the Ordinance of 1904 was passed which gave the right to their provincial council to open a register and put accountants on that register, but existing bona fide public accountants were protected. Always when new legislation has been brought in the past you have protected those men who were practising at the time. It is for these reasons that I have put on the paper the amendment standing in my name.

I second the amendment, and I do it because as the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has said, a certain group of young men will be protected, but another group is being sacrificed. Notwithstanding all that has been said here, even by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), I am convinced that another ring fence is being drawn here. The Bill protects certain people. It is, indeed, stipulated that persons who have practised for five years can also sit for the examination to obtain recognition, but why is it not provided as was done in a similar Act of 1919 that all persons who are practising at present shall be included. In such case the hon. member could introduce the Bill, and we would vote for it. But here a line is being drawn. It is shown here that five accountants societies exist in South Africa. Four of them are included, and they form a ring and everyone outside is disqualified. This kind of legislation against other people who are just as competent and entitled to make a living is not fair. Year after year this Bill is introduced. Why should it now be pushed through to the detriment of certain people who make their living as accountants. In relation to the agreement which is constantly being referred to, I must say that there are dozens of people here who know nothing about it. I know nothing about it as well as the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street). How far is the agreement in force? Does it go far enough? Does it include public servants and municipal servants? Or will they, after the Bill is passed, have trouble in their appointments because when a municipality sends its accounts for inspection to a bank, the bank might, e.g., demand that they should be prepared by a chartered accountant? Will not the other people be dismissed then? Hon. members may say what they like, but there is no doubt that a ring is being drawn, and a certain section alone will have the right to exercise that profession. We must also look after the interests of the other section of the people. It is unjust, even actually illegal, to suddenly rob people who have for years made a living in this profession of their livelihood and to put them on the street. This is a young country and many of the people have developed themselves by study, but have had no opportunity of passing examinations. Let us use our common sense and include all the people who are now practising. Hon. members from the countryside who are in favour of this Bill must remember a little that if the shopkeepers want to have their books audited they will no longer employ a local man who has always done the work and has passed no examination, but get someone from town. What expense will this not occasion? I shall propose at the third reading that the Bill be read this day six months.

We have been debating for the last hour the question of making provision for the admission of certain classes of people, whereas this is purely a designation Bill, which principle has been accepted by the House. Now hon. members are trying to add a clause which will lay down that other classes of people will have to be admitted. It is a very laudable object, and if the House thinks that further provision should be made for accountants, let the House do so, but what I would implore the House not to do is to place this invidious burden on the Government. If the House wants to provide that members of the public service and other people shall be classed as accountants, let them not throw the onus on the Government. The agreement has laid down definitely what shall take place. The position of these people can only be improved by this agreement, and they cannot lose anything. Speaking for myself, I must thankfully decline this honour. For these reasons I hope the House will not accept the amendment.

I intend to support the amendment as I consider we are in danger of doing a grave injustice to a very large number of our South African youths. Suppose there are two boys of equal merit; one goes to an accountant in Cape Town, and another enters the municipal or the public service. From an accountancy point of view they are of equal merit. Whatever the ability of the boy in the municipal or public service may be, he is not entitled to qualify, whereas his brother, of the same ability, by a mere accident is allowed to become a chartered accountant. Supposing a certain municipal council, the railway department or some other public department, requires and advertises for a chartered accountant. These young fellows, in their own service, will not be qualified to fill the position, although they may be doing accountancy work of the most intricate character. I am as keen as anyone else that our young men should be able to qualify as doctors or accountants in South Africa, but you should not pass anything into law that would prevent a large number of other young men from also qualifying by proper examination. I have a letter from a young South African occupying a very responsible position, who asks for the assistance and protection of those who, although doing the work of and holding a position equal to that of men who are titled chartered accountants, are not allowed to hold that title—

One of his arguments is—

What would you say if a man wanted to become a carpenter?

Provision is made for admission to my trade union, that the applicant must either serve an apprenticeship, or if he has not served such an apprenticeship, he is admitted after working at the trade for five years, and he is vouched for by two members of the union. The same principle is involved I want to protect a larger number who go into the Government or municipal services and take up accountancy as a life’s work. In my opinion the whole thing should be subject to examination. You should not make a close preserve and exclude a man who has the same merits, but who, by accident, has not worked for outside firms. I want to point out that a chartered accountant who comes from England and has been given that title in England or some other place, is admitted to full fellow ship of the society in this country, although he may not have qualified in the way that in future will be required of our own young men.

The importation or transportation here of the designation “chartered” appears to me to have no justification. It savours of what the Americans call a “fake,” a strutting in borrowed plumes. People will say that these accountants call themselves chartered accountants, but whence and where is their charter derived from. I also received a letter from the president of the South African branch of the London Association of Accountants. I do not, myself, know what the status of the society is, but the letter says that this body is recognized throughout the world, excepting in the Transvaal and Natal The society is not in any way desirous of preventing the passage of the Bill, and all it asks for is that its members should have the same rights as are accorded to the members of other overseas societies. Perhaps the hon. member in charge of the Bill will tell us whether the status of this society is not high enough to ensure its recognition or what other reasons if any exists for its differential treatment.

I am glad that we again have an opportunity of discussing the Bill. I have opposed the Bill from the beginning and to my regret it was pushed through the other day notwithstanding our opposition. We hear so much about the agreement and the Minister said that the Bill only dealt with the designation of accountant. An agreement, however, was drawn up outside and it was given to us and we were told that if the Bill were passed then the persons who were being done an injustice would be given that opportunity of obtaining the title. What now surprises me in these clever people is that they come and tell us that we must pass the Bill and when that has been done they will do what is not stated in the Bill. My protest is that the agreement is not in the Bill. If it is not in it then we can make no alteration to it. I want to quote a letter which I have received from a qualified accountant. He writes—

(Here we see that this person is under the impression that the agreement is in the Bill because he wants an alteration to be made in committee.) He says there should be added—

He further writes—

It is a qualified accountant who writes like that and he sees that an injustice is being done to these people. He now proposes that the agreement shall be altered, but how can we do that if the agreement is not in the Bill. When a man has prepared an agreement and signed it, his verbal agreement lapses when he gets into court, because the court merely takes the agreement as contained in black and white. If the promoting societies who entered into the agreement are going to refuse to give the persons any privilege then they have nothing to go to the court with. They can come to the House again and arrange for a private Bill to be introduced to put the matter right but why should such duplication be necessary. Why cannot the Bill be postponed till next year so that the agreement can be incorporated? Then we can alter the agreement according to the wish of the people who are being unjustly treated.

Hon. members must confine themselves to the amendment moved and must not discuss the general merits of the Bill.

I support the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn), and I hope hon. members will assist us in passing it. I am sorry the Minister of Finance has made an appeal to the House not to vote for it, but the opponents of the Bill feel that an injustice is being done to more people than what the Bill gives rights to.

I wish to support the amendments of the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) and Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). I think the Minister of Finance was unfair in the way in which he put the agreement to the House, for he said that the agreement made the position of accountants outside the societies much more favourable. As a matter of fact, the agreement specifically excludes public servants. I think every member of the House is in favour of the Bill, and is anxious to see that accountants be protected in the same way as architects are to be protected under the Bill which has just been passed. At the same time, we cannot understand why public servants should specifically be excluded from the Bill. I don’t think public servants or municipal employees will thank the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) for saying that the acceptance of the amendment will cheapen the title of accountant.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander put and agreed to.

I move—

objected.

Bill to be read a third time on 13th May.

I move—

Hon. members will see that this Bill deals with the amendment of the Railways Regulation and Control Act of 1916. As a result of our experience since 1916, of the operation of that Act, it is thought necessary to propose certain amendments to certain provisions in the Act. I think it is best for the House, as well as for the Administration, to refer the Bill to the standing Select Committee of Railways and Harbours after the second reading. The different points in connection with which amendments are desired will then be inquired into by the select committee, and I think that the work of the House will be accelerated in that way, while, at the same time, it will ensure that the different points are properly gone into by the select committee. I, therefore, do not propose to discuss the different amendments proposed, because it would take up unnecessary time. I just want to draw special attention to one or two points. The first is in Clause 2 (a). Hon. members will see there that provision is made for the extension of the Administration’s powers in connection with the erection of mooring masts for airships. It is necessary in consequence of the discussion of the question at the Imperial Conference because the Government promised to conduct the necessary preliminary enquiries in South Africa in order to erect the necessary mooring masts, and to contribute an amount of £800 towards the cost of the preliminary work. The Government regarded it as, desirable for the Railway Administration to take this new form of traffic under its aegis. In Clause 2 hon. members will see that we take powers for the establishment of railway institutes. It has for some time been the habit of the Railway Administration to establish railway institutes, but the law advisers tell us that there is some doubt as to whether the Railway Administration has the power. This sub-clause is inserted to put the matter beyond doubt and to make it clear that the Administration has the right. Allow me to say in this connection that we have 43 railway institutes in the Union to-day and three in South-West Africa with a membership of 16,000 railway servants. I would like to make use of this opportunity to say that the work of the different institutes is of a very good and useful nature, and that the staff who do voluntary service as members of committee in the institutes, also do good work in connection with supplying sporting facilities. Then hon. members will also notice that in sub-clause 10 of Clause 2 provision is made for expansion of the tourist traffic. Hon. members will be interested to learn that the work of the Railway Administration in connection with this tourist traffic has undergone considerable extension. Especially in the coming year we hope to get a great number of tourists from different parts of the world, and it is therefore, necessary to place the Railway Administration on a sound basis in connection with this tourist traffic. One of the most interesting developments on the railways is the extraordinary expansion of tourist traffic. I think a word of special praise by me would not be out of place in connection with the good work done by the general manager in attracting more tourists to South Africa. Then a word in connection with Clause 11. Hon. members will see that it is laid down there that in future claims for compensation or loss or damage of any kind must be sent in within four months. It is in the interests of the Administration that a period be fixed within which these claims shall be sent in so that they may not be kept pending interminably. Hon. members will see that in Clause 15 powers are asked for entering upon private property if necessary where washaways have occurred in order to obtain the necessary material for restoring the damage done by the washaway. Sub-clause (3) of Clause 15 says, however, that the necessary compensation must be paid to such person, and that applies also to the removing of trees and other obstructions. In practice it has appeared that it is necessary to have the power of going on to private property and removing obstructions. Actual damage is compensated for under sub-clause (3), and if there is a dispute as to the amount it will be decided by arbitration where the private individual will be represented. Then a word with regard to Clause 17. Hon. members will see that it is laid down that where an enquiry is made by the Administration in connection with discipline and accidents, and lawsuits follow, the evidence and statements by the officials concerned will be protected in the first instance and may not be laid before the court. I think that hon. members appreciate the necessity for the freedom of officials in connection with the reporting of any irregularity. This frankness in connection with the making of a statement of what has actually happened will probably be curtailed where there is a fear that it will come to court and be used against them. We know that railway officials are very good railwaymen, but they are not lawyers, and quite naturally there may be fear in connection with submission of a statement to the court. It speaks for itself that if an official actually makes a statement under oath in court the full facts and the truth must come before the court, but I do not think it is a good thing to curtail in any way the freedom in connection with the reports. I hope that the House will pass the second reading, after which I shall move that the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

I am very glad to hear from the Minister that he is going to send this Bill to a select committee, because I consider it is essentially a Bill which ought to be carefully considered in all its details. I admit also the wisdom of the Minister in making provision in regard to tourists’ tickets, but I do hope that he will not go too far in this direction. Under ordinary circumstances, I suppose, we are light in encouraging tourists, but, from information I have received, the praise that is given to our railways is really given in regard to our main line, and as far as I can judge, the moment you get off the main line the system is not run entirely to the comfort of the passengers. I was, for example, informed a little while ago by someone who travelled to Grahamstown that you would notice the difference the moment you get off the main line. Carriages are not kept as clean as they might be, comfort leaves a lot to be desired, and the attendants on these trains are not by any means what we have a right to expect. I am not pressing that now, but I do hope that the Minister is not going to allow the tourist traffic to have all the benefits of our railways while the people who live in this country be left suffering because they get the older carriages and men who are not quite so qualified to see to the good running of the trains are put in charge. This Bill, like so many other Bills, has a sting in its tail. We find that particularly in regard to Sections 15 and 17. The Minister already has powers under the Act of 1916 to do what he requires to do in regard to sub-section (1), except that he now takes powers, not only in regard to washaways, but also other accidents of a similar kind. That, of course, goes very far and we do not object to it by itself, but if you consider sub-section (2), I think the Minister is introducing a very dangerous principle. He does not only seek powers to remove trees or such like obstructions, but he can remove anything—

I think we will want it very clearly defined what he means by that. There are cases even on the main line where to remove what, in the opinion of the Administration, is an obstruction, you may require to remove a farmhouse. I do think that ought to be very clearly defined. Now we come to Clause 17. This is a clause which I cannot understand. I do not appreciate why the Administration should require these powers. The central Government has not got this power. We are asked to give to a commercial concern a power and a privilege which no other concern in the world enjoys to-day. Why must the Administration, against the general public, enjoy this extraordinary right? I think the Minister should have given us further information in regard to the matter, because I regard this as the most important clause in the Bill. You are giving them a right as against all the inhabitants of this country. The Bill exempts—

from being disclosed. Our laws in regard to discovery are very clear. I can find no precedent for this. I have heard no single reason advanced by the Minister why he should have this extraordinary power. It has been found to be inconvenient, no doubt, but every defendant finds it inconvenient to discover, but the law is made so as not to embarrass any litigant unnecessarily. Why should litigants not have the full privileges against the Railway Administration in the same way as they have against any individual society or association? Our present law is as near perfect as can be, but when the law does, in the opinion of the judge, act harshly, he still has the power to refuse to give the right of discovery. He has a very wide discretion in these matters. When you say it is against public policy to make any disclosure the court will not allow that disclosure. I feel this is a matter which should not be introduced into a Bill of this character. The Railway Administration is, after all, purely a business concern. Under the Act of Union they must carry on business principles. We should have the peculiar position that in future any plaintiff suing the central Government can ask the court to make an order of discovery against that central Government, but he debarred from the benefit of such discovery against the railway. The very documents which, by this Bill the Railway Administration will not disclose, the central Government will have to disclose. The Minister has ample protection already. This is an extraordinary privilege the Minister is asking for, and is going to act very unfairly against all litigants. After all, the rule of discovery was instituted for the protection of litigants generally, and not for one particular party only. The plaintiff’s case may assume extraordinary proportions if he is to get the evidence which he otherwise would receive by having disclosure made. This is a law which has been very carefully considered by all civilized nations, so as to lessen the cost of litigation. I do not know what the reason for this contemplated change is. The Minister has not gone very fully into the matter. I should have thought with such an extraordinary change in a principle of law, he would have given us a very full explanation. Let me tell the Minister in regard to discovery that the parties are very fully protected. On the origin of the practice of discovery Lord Langdale, when Master of the Rolls, said in Storey v. Lennox—

In our own courts we have had the well known case of the Barkly West Bridge Company v, the Colonial Government—

All the Minister has to do is that either he himself or someone responsible in his department, addresses a letter to the court that the effect of disclosing this document will be against public policy and the court will not order him to disclose it. The court has always accepted any statement from a Minister in that regard. I say, therefore, they are quite sufficiently protected in regard to public policy. The court also may refuse the order for production of documents in the possession of the other party, but this discretion must be exercised with due regard to legal principles; therefore, when it would not be unjust to allow production, the order for production should be made. Then we have several other cases. Take the English courts. In the case of Flight v. Robins the court held—

In the case of Swanson v. Lishman it was laid down that—

As to what documents are privileged, it is purely for the judge or the court to decide. There is one other quotation I wish to give. It is from the judgment in Kain v. Farrer—

We have often had the objection taken that documents could not be produced because it would be against public policy, and the statement of a Minister has been sufficient for the courts. The step here proposed is a very dangerous one, and we are going to give one body privileges such as no other body enjoys, and as a result we are going to make it almost impossible for anybody to be successful in a case against the railway administration. There are cases of burning of the veld. We know of one case where the railway refused to disclose, and put up the case that the burning could not be due to sparks from the engine, as it had a spark arrestor on. That would have been almost impossible to disprove but when they made disclosure it was discovered that that arrestor was out of order. That immediately gave the plaintiff the benefit. Why should the railway administration be protected in a case like that? Surely the administration cannot wish to hide the truth! I do hope the Minister will reconsider his position with regard to these cases, even before we go to the select committee. I believe our legal friends will admit that it will make it almost impossible for litigants to be successful against the railway administration if this clause becomes law. Let me ask the Minister whether he is going to give us the promised statement with regard to the future management of the railways? We should have had it before now, and on this Bill he has a very good opportunity of telling us. The public is becoming very anxious to know, and it is certainly not a matter for this Government only, because it may bind future Governments also. It is essential that the Minister should take into consultation all parties before he makes a radical alteration with regard to the management of our railways. I feel also that he should deal with the rumours that are rife. There was a rumour, for example, that a committee will in future manage the railways, and we feel that a committee such as is contemplated, if the rumour is correct, could not act successfully. One finds it difficult to believe that the Minister contemplates such a radical change, so I hope he will be able to refute that rumour. I would urge on the Minister, when he comes to consider the position, that the time has arrived when the control of our railways and of our harbours should be divided, and that the finance of our railways should be independant of the other management. The management of our harbours should be by someone who is not also the general manager of our railways. I want to impress on the Minister that the best-run harbours in the world are run absolutely independently of the railways. On the railways you cannot move everything at one time, and you have to arrange that your trains take a full complement of passengers or a full load of freight at every trip. Trains are run on scheduled times and must run regularly. In regard to harbours, however, there is a rush when a boat comes in and a ruth when a boat goes out. The time has come when we should consider the position. In the U.S.A, they have fewer harbours than in Europe. The numbers are, as far as I can remember, 17 to 58, and in the U.S.A., by really good management and expert knowledge, they have succeeded in arranging for dealing with a larger tonnage than in Europe, and they run the harbours much more economically. When we consider the expense of everything in America the running of their harbours at a low cost clearly demonstrates that they do so only by expert management. It does not affect the steamship companies and other carriers, but ultimately it comes on the consumer, who is the man who is most concerned in the matter. Whereas we leave the companies to charge what they like, it comes back on the consumer in the end, and unless we have expert management of the harbours and separate them from the railways altogether, we have the harbours submitting to what the general manager and the railway board may do without question, and the public suffers severely. The public awoke to this fact in America, and demanded the best management for their ports. Unless we do the same we are bound to go down, because our ports will be found to be too expensive.

I would like to support the request of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) for information with reference to the management of the railways. Some time since, about the beginning of the session, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) requested that information should be given who was the coming general manager, and what was the intention of the Government with regard thereto. It was promised that later on that information would be given. I think that was well over two months ago, and it is time now that some information should be given. We have had the budget speech and the budget debate, and no information has been given. I think the Minister should now indicate what is to be the policy of the Government. There are plenty of rumours about. There is the rumour referred to by the hon. member. Personally, I do not think it will be the case that such a commission will be appointed. It is folly. I hope that when the Minister does appoint a new general manager, he will separate the financial from the technical side. I was strongly in favour of that being done when I took office, but owing to circumstances I could not carry it through. I think the Minister will find in the records of the railway board memoranda on that subject by the late Sir Thomas Price and Mr. T. S. McEwen, and I think I am correct in saying that both of these gentlemen were in favour of the change. As to having a separate manager for the harbours, as suggested by the last speaker, I would not commit myself to that at present, although there is a lot to be said for it. There are one or two points in the Bill that I wish to call attention to. Why does the Minister seek the power to take over and manage masts and all things incidental thereto for the mooring of aircraft. Under the Aircraft Act of 1923 these things should be under the control of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. The Railway Department has quite sufficient on its hands without dabbling in aircraft matters as well. Clause (2) also gives the department authority to manufacture and sell ice. Why does the department want to go into the ice business? Surely there are plenty of private ice manufacturers! I think it is hardly likely that the department will be able to make ice cheaper than it can buy it. I very much object to the railway administration desiring to get everything into its own hands. Why does the Minister not leave this to private enterprise? Remember that every ice manufacturer driven out of existence means another taxpayer the less. The department pays nothing in taxes, but the private individual does. Then the Bill authorizes the department to provide for the transport, sleeping accommodation and refreshment of the holders of tourist tickets. Does the Minister want to go in for the hotel business? I hope not, but a strict reading of the clause would enable him to do so. Then as to the point raised by the hon. member for Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) I agree with him as to the undesirability of placing the Railway Department above the law. The Government does not consider expense when it comes to fighting a legal action. The department should be amendable to the same laws as private people are. The railways are a commercial undertaking, and why should they be desirous of being placed on an advantageous position against their customers? Even as it is, the department is at an advantage, for to fight it is a very serious business. The proposal is extremely unjust.

There are a few points in the Bill which must be discussed in the House and can be amended in committee. I agree with the former speaker with regard to Clause 2 (a) in which it is laid down that the railway administration shall have power to erect mooring masts for airships and everything connected therewith and to make agreements in that connection. I doubt very much whether the time has come to entrust work of this kind to the Department of Railways and Harbours. I doubt whether aviation has already advanced so far as to justify the payment of such an amount even if only to erect one mast. I understand that the cost of a mast runs from £70,000 to £80,000 and under the circumstances and bearing in mind the development our country requires in so many ways, especially with regard to railway construction, the building of grain elevators and such like, I doubt if it is wise to erect masts in connection with flying. I doubt if it is in the interests of our country from an economic point of view to take this step at present. I also think that at present it should not fall under the Department of Railways. It seems to me that it should not, as suggested by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), fall under Posts and Telegraphs, but would be more at home under defence. It is quite clear that this proposal is the result of the discussions at the Imperial Conference. We know that the question of the erection of these masts was discussed there and as far as I have been able to follow the discussion in the papers and also having regard to the speech made by the Minister of Air recently in the House of Commons it seemed to me as if the object was in the first place not so much economic development as empire defence and that that resolution of the Imperial Conference gave rise to the provision in this Bill. As I view the matter it is the intention in the first place to create a system of air defence for the empire. Only recently I read of how Sir William Hoare, Minister of Air in England, was particularly emphatic that special regard should be had to defence and that it should be done on a large scale in order to be worth anything and that it should embrace the empire and that it should not be local and that the force should be transferable. Then he spoke further about the two airships being built at present and I believe that those two airships are really the cause of this proposal. Further, the Minister said that the two airships would probably be completed during the current financial year, that they would be able to carry 200 fully armed soldiers (no mention was made of foodstuffs or commercial goods) and that they would be able to take with them a considerable number of aeroplanes. It seems clear, therefore, that the main idea is empire defence, and at the discussion at the Imperial Conference it clearly appeared that the masts are required for these two airships. Then it was further said by the commission appointed in that connection that meteorological enquiry is necessary in connection with the two ships to be completed in 1928. It seems to me that the Government followed up that recommendation by having the enquiry started by means of the aeroplanes of the Defence Force, and I think that this matter should fall under the Department of Defence and not under Railways. When later on it has developed and is of economic value for transport purposes then it would perhaps be more suitably under the latter department, but whether it is advisable for South Africa to undertake this costly experiment under the circumstances is a big question to my mind. We know that air transport has developed considerably and who knows whether the masts will not be quite out-of-date and useless in five or six years. Then we shall have had this costly experiment and the Railway Department will have spent all this money while that department requires all its funds for ordinary railways and reduction in rates and for the extension of the lines according to the conditions laid down for it. I am surprised that hon. members on the other side of the House who talk so much about economy nowadays, have made no mention of it. I do not know whether the ideal of economy has made way entirely for Imperial sentiments, but the experiment appears to me to be a risky one. The ideal at present is to tighten the empire bonds in a friendly manner and without domination, but I doubt whether we can sacrifice all this money to-day for that ideal. I think if a mast of this nature has to be built at present it should be done by the Department of Defence and not by the railways, and we could then, if necessary, subtract the cost from the amount we pay for the maintenance of the Imperial fleet. Then I see that under Clause 2 (q) certain powers are given to the Department of Railways and Harbours. The railways will now have the right to establish railway institutes, railway clubs and reading rooms. What is meant by clubs is not quite clear, but under (d) it is proposed to give the department the right of providing for transport, sleeping accommodation and refreshments for ticket-holders, in other words it is sought to give the department the right to establish hotels. I do not know whether this thought was uppermost in the mind of the Minister of Justice when he introduced his Liquor Bill, but there it was provided that the Liquor Bill should not be applicable to hotels of this sort.

Where is there anything about hotels?

No, it is not spoken of but mention is made of clubs and, further, of sleeping accommodation and refreshments which really means an hotel, because an hotel does not generally provide more than refreshment and sleeping accommodation. On the railways refreshment includes the supply of drink. I just want to show that it has been the idea for some time, because, in the Liquor Bill, provision is made that the Bill shall not be applied to hotels established by departments of State. I do not want to go further into the question as to whether the Government should take this sort of business altogether out of the hands of private individuals when it comes to boarding, sleeping accommodation and refreshments, but I want to point out that there is a growing feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of a large section of the public because the State’s share in the liquor trade is increasing so enormously. If provision is made for the ordinary needs of bona fide passengers there is nothing to be said, but it is clear that the Railway Department would obtain many privileges under this Bill with regard to the sale of liquor, and that there is a grave risk that under cover of the necessity for providing travellers with the ordinary conveniences, the liquor traffic will be extended. Recently I asked the Minister for certain figures in connection with the use of alcoholic liquor sold by the Railway Administration. I asked for the figures for 1925 and 1926, for South African light wines and all other alcoholic liquor separately, and the figures provided were enough to make one feel anxious. It is of great importance that I should give these figures. In spite of the facilities given for the sale of light Cape wines on the railways—it is certainly one of the cheapest drinks one can get on the train, even cheaper than lemos and soda —we find that its sale has diminished, while the quantity of other alcoholic liquor has increased tremendously. In 1925 21,185 gallons of Cape light wines were sold, and in 1926 it had been reduced to 21,147. Although the price of whisky has increased, in 1925 161,871 gallons of other alcoholic liquor was sold, and in 1926 it had increased to 180,921 gallons. I also inquired what the respective profits were. In 1925 the profit on light wines was £11,485, and, in spite of the reduction in quantity, the profit increased to £11,802, apparently because the Administration bought the wine more cheaply. The gross profit on other alcoholic liquor was £85,177 in 1925, which shows what a source of profit for the State the sale of liquor has become. In 1926, the gross profit increased to £90,000. Whether we grudge the Railway Administration the profit or not, the fact remains that a large section of the people is unwilling to participate as burgers in a business which makes a profit from the sale of strong drink. We must not lose sight of that. In that connection I may remark that the railways are given the right to sell liquor to persons who are not bona fide passengers, and we find places for the sale of liquor on the stations. I asked for information about the Cape Town buffet, which is called the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger’s) gold mine, whether he had anything to do with it or not and I was told that in one year nearly 10,000 gallons of light wine and nearly 18,000 gallons of other alcoholic liquor was sold there. The profit on light wines alone was £5,802.

Do you not want to help the wine farmers?

That is not the point. The point is that the State is engaged in developing a liquor trade which is not intended only for bona fide passengers, and that a large section of the public which is just as much a part of the State has actually conscientious objections to it. The gross profit on other alcoholic liquor apart from light wine in one year was £12,473, so that the profits in one year were nearly £20,000. It is a fact, therefore, that the State is engaged in developing a liquor trade. I am not pleading here in the interests of the ordinary liquor dealer. This is a question apart, and if the State comes forward with legislation to control the liquor trade that is a different matter. Here a State business is developing so that persons who are not passengers can make tremendous use of it. I have already watched the way people come out of the Cape Town railway buffet. Then there is another small point I want to draw the Minister’s attention to. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has already referred to the fact that Clause 15 (2) gives the Railway Administration the right to take away or destroy private property in the interests of the railways. I recognize that it is very necessary that the State should have the power to proceed with its necessary undertakings and that the Railway Administration should be given the power when private rights come into conflict with its own. At the same time I want to ask the Minister to take proper care that private owners are fairly treated. It is true that compensation is here spoken of, but there may be destruction which cannot be easily reckoned in money. I had a case recently in my constituency which makes me afraid of the clause. At a certain station, in a part where the railway, therefore, had full jurisdiction, there is a house occupied by a certain official, in front of which there are a number of beautiful trees. In the district trees of this nature are a rarity and their value cannot easily be reckoned in money. The department was busy erecting certain signal posts and laying wires, and the spot from which the signal had to be operated was somewhat to the rear of the trees, so that one could not see the signal from where one operated it. The responsible official ordered the trees to be cut down, and it occasioned quite a sensation. Fortunately, I happened to arrive on the scene and went to speak to him. I asked him whether it was not possible to put the place from where the signal had to be operated two yards forward, so that the man could see the signal. The result was that that was done, and that it worked well. Had I not arrived there the trees would have been cut down to the inconvenience and detriment of the surroundings. Care must be taken to prevent this sort of vandalism because it could easily happen that an official who has the power might do something undesirable. Provision should at least be made that the person who has the rights of ownership should be given a reasonable time before the official can do such things, so that he may appeal to the Administration and, if necessary, to the Minister if he is dissatisfied. I would also be glad if the Minister would explain why it is such a crime for anyone to transfer to another an ordinary ticket he has bought and for which he has no further use. He has paid fully for the ticket, but now it is laid down as a crime for which anyone can get at least a month’s imprisonment. I can understand that when anyone disposes of a concession or a free ticket there may be some difficulty, but the transference of an ordinary ticket I cannot regard as such a big crime. I think it is frequently done, although it appears from the ticket that it is not transferable.

I should like to say a few words about the provision which my colleague wants to make giving the Railway Administration certain powers with reference to the furnishing of mooring masts for airships. I can quite understand there being considerable misunderstanding about this matter. The reason for it is that there are certainly few people in the country who understand the important and quick development of aviation and the possibilities of it. As for me, I first appreciated the meaning of this method of transport for the future after I had seen what was going on to-day. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) was quite right in saying that the provision is being made as a result of the resolution at the recent Imperial Conference. That was a resolution which is not only in the interests of co-operation between South Africa and the empire in connection with the furtherance of aviation, but it is absolutely in the interests of South Africa itself. There is no doubt about it. The hon. member asks why it was put under the Railway Administration and not under the Defence Department. The reason for that is that the provision of mooring masts has nothing to do with defence and with war Experience during the world war was to the effect that although airships—in contradistinction with aeroplanes— were actually used, and possibly will still be used to a certain extent—they are so liable to destruction that they are practically useless for war purposes. For commercial purposes, however, they are of particularly great value.

Why was it not placed under the Department of Posts and Telegraphs?

We arranged a few years ago to place aviation under the post office merely as a small experiment. It was not advisable to create a special department as has been done in other countries. The possibilities of development are so large that the hon. member can see that it is something which is out of place under the post office, but should be placed under the department responsible for transport in the country. To-day it is attached to railways, but we do not know what the future of the provincial system will be. If the provincial councils disappear in the future, then we shall have a central department for matters of traffic and transport. Not only railways will come under the department then, but also ordinary roads and aviation. The provision here made for the establishment of a mooring mast is in connection with the ordinary trade traffic between South Africa and England in the first place, and in the second place between South Africa and the outside world. We know what development has occurred in airships to-day in Germany, and that the hope is cherished in England of within two years building airships to carry a hundred passengers plus a certain amount of luggage to South Africa in six days. They are already engaged in building two such airships. Hon. members can see how important it will be for South Africa, because our country, with its large gold and diamond production amounting to millions of pounds every year, produces things which can be carried in small compass. The saving in interest alone by transport in six days instead of 17 or 21 days will mean hundreds of thousands of pounds to us. The provision of a mooring mast is a parallel to the building of harbour works for shipping. The mooring mast is the harbour of the airship, and for this method of transport. In the various sheds where airships are garaged up to 200 people are kept on to assist, but by the possession of a mooring mast it becomes quite a simple job to tie up an airship to the mast. It is quite safe, and the airship can start directly from the mast. The supply of a mooring mast causes small expense in comparison with harbours for shipping. My point is that aviation is going to become a great thing for our country. In my opinion it will be the regular communication for long distances, for all traffic which requires speed, such as for valuable traffic like gold, diamonds, specie, securities and trade documents. All the countries in the world are getting ready for it. Is South Africa now to say that it wants to remain behindhand? Must we only make a start when this means of transport has already become a fact? It takes two years to make the preparations. We, therefore, see that it is in the interests of the country itself, and not only in the interests of co-operation between the various parts of the empire. In this way South Africa will be able to share in the privileges of quick traffic by means of airships which will start working in about two years. This is possibly the country which will get the greatest advantage out of it, because an important and valuable part of our exportation can be made by means of airships. Therefore, the Prime Minister and I did not hesitate in the least to comply with the request made to us as to the other dominions to take preliminary steps to see that we should have a mooring mast when the airships were ready to come here from England and from other countries, in order that we might receive them. We must provide the necessary conveniences for the airships to come here. We did not hesitate, because we knew that this House would make no objection when it learnt what advantages were connected with the matter. Of course, we can take another course, and establish a special department to deal with traffic of this kind, but I do not think that that is advisable. It is not germane to the post office, because the development may become too great. It is best to put it under the railways, who are already to-day responsible for the most important part of our traffic, and may, in the future, assume control of other methods of transport. That is the reason why in the Bill provision is made for the supply of a mooring mast, and I consider that the House will not only be asked to make provision for the preliminary enquiry, but also for other masts in the future.

I am quite sure that the House feels indebted the Minister of Finance for the information he has given with regard to the erection of this mast for mooring airships. He has shown quite conclusively that the fears voiced by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) are quite groundless. Because the erection of this mast was suggested at the Imperial Conference to our Government the hon. member seems to have seen the cloven hoof in the proposal. That the proposal came from the wicked Imperial Government and he assumed that it had some designs on our liberties in South Africa. I hope this fear has now disappeared, and that he will vote for the clause and vote for the sum of money for the erection of the air mast. With regard to the provision ill the Bill giving the Government power to issue tourist tickets and arrange with companies and others for the purpose of conducting tourists throughout the country, there is an impression abroad —I do not know whether it is well-founded or not—that these tourists get better terms when they come from oversea than South African tourists do. I should be very glad to know what the position is. I think they get better accommodation and attention, if one judges by what one sees in the newspapers, than the ordinary traveller does. I think that where a traveller is travelling on our branch lines he is entitled to the same accommodation and treatment as if he were travelling on the main line. I have had a good many complaints made to me by people passing through the country that though they get good treatment on the main line, they do not get the same attention and accommodation on branch lines. Their bedding is often dirty and hardly sanitary. I know there are always clean sheets and pillowslips provided, but the blankets in some cases are very dirty indeed, and are badly in need of washing. Judging by their appearance, even on main line trains, the blankets often are very far from clean. Another complaint that has been made by travellers on several occasions is that notwithstanding the fact that they have booked their seats a day or two before they started their journey, the conductors keep the carriages closed and prevent entry by travellers, unless they tip them. I advised them to make a complaint to the general manager, but they said they were leaving the country, and would probably never have a complaint to make of the sort again. This should be looked into. One case came to my notice, and I asked the lady whether I should use her name and report the matter to the general manager, but for the reason I have given she declined. With regard to Clause 11, I see the Minister wants to enact that if a claim in connection with a loss of goods is not made within four months of the loss, the claim would be barred. It very often happens that a claimant is unable to make his claim within four months. Ordinarily, four months is a reasonable time, but the man who is going to claim may be absent from his place of business, or even from South Africa, or be seriously ill; but from some cause or another, quite beyond his control, he might be unable to make a claim within four months. There ought to be some discretion left to the court to extend the time where the interests of justice require it, and I would ask the Minister seriously to consider the matter when the Bill is before the select committee. With regard to Clause 15, providing that where the railway administration take the power to enter premises to remove trees and other obstructions without notice, I think that there ought to be notice, unless there is extreme urgency. It would be very annoying and unfair if a gang of railwaymen begin cutting down trees bordering on railway property without giving notice. I can quite understand, where a washaway occurs, you want to restore the line in the shortest possible time, and it may be impossible to give notice to the owner, who may be some distance away; but where possible notice ought to be given. The only other point I want to make is that already referred to by the hon. members for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), with regard to the right of discovery which every litigant has. I really fail to see why the railway administration should wish to be in a more favourable position, and should be enabled to withhold from the court what it would be bound to give if it were a private concern. It is only in the interests of justice that the courts have power to grant discovery orders, and no judge would grant such an order if the vital interests of the railway administration will suffer in any way. Where a man puts in a claim for compensation against the railway administration, it is in the interests of justice and of the public interest that there should be a full disclosure of the facts. I hope this clause will be deleted when the committee stage comes; and if not deleted, it ought, in the interests of the public, to be very materially amended. Otherwise I think the Bill is a very necessary one, and with certain amendments I should be quite glad to see it passed into law.

This is an omnibus Bill dealing with railway matters, and is going to a select committee, so I do not want to take up much time. I hope the select committee will consider the Bill not only in the interest of the Railway Department, but of the public interest. I do not want to say much about the airship mooring mast after the admirable speech of the Minister of Finance. Personally, I think the Railway Department is the proper department to deal with the airways. They deal with the railways and waterways, and it will cost very much less if they deal with the airways than if you have to constitute a separate body. I think the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) was very unfair to the Railway Department in making out as if it was a tremendous dealer in liquor in providing refreshments on the trains. If you have prohibition in South Africa, the Railway Department will have to come into line; but it is one of the ordinary duties of a transportation department to provide comfort for travellers. As one who frequently travels by train my experience is that liquor is not pushed on the railways, tea and coffee being far more frequently drunk in the trains than alcoholic refreshments. Many passengers would very much resent not being able to obtain the ordinary refreshments they like, whether alcoholic or non-alcoholic. I take it that the power proposed to be given to the Government to establish railway clubs and institutes on Government premises does not necessarily mean that the Minister will manage them and I do not see that any exception can be taken to this clause. The railwaymen manage their affairs very well indeed, and have established seven orphanages which they run themselves without sixpence contribution from the Government. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) has objected to the Railway Department running hotels, but if we are going to develop the tourist traffic we shall have to have railway hotels right through the country. Every large shipping and railway company in other countries has up-to-date hotels, and our Railway Department will have to provide modern hotels, the existence of which will help to make South Africa attractive to tourists from overseas. Then the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) objected to Government manufacturing and selling ice. Seeing, however, that Government has power to construct cold storages how can it be prevented from manufacturing ice? It may be that as the result of the Government making ice we shall be able to obtain that commodity at a little more reasonable price than we are able to do to-day. Coming to the important clauses (Nos. 15 and 16) I think sub-section (2) of Section 15 is too widely drafted. If the Government take the power to go on a man’s land where the existence of bush is likely to endanger or impede the proper working of the railway and to remove the obstruction that will be quite enough, but when they say that they are at liberty to do this whenever in the opinion of the Administration an obstruction is dangerous that is going too far. The onus should be on the administration to prove that the obstruction constitutes a danger. If there is a danger let the department step in and remove it, but the department should not have the power to act both as judge and executioner. Perhaps the most important section of the Bill is No. 17, regarding the nondisclosure of departmental reports in the event of legal proceedings against the Government. I have no sympathy whatever with such a provision, for it seems to me that the Government is thereby trying to take an unfair advantage of the public. In the early days of litigation a man was allowed to keep his best argument up his sleeve, but now he is compelled to place his cards on the table long before the case is heard in the court. Should the administration be sued it will not disclose documents which may do its case harm. We want the truth, and it is not a question of whether the department will be harmed by it or not. These reports made by the department probably are the truth, and if they are not the truth it will be better for the department to save money by settling the case. His opponents may have reports on his case, and the Minister can see them, but the other man cannot see the report which the Minister has up his sleeve. Then again, if the reports are in favour of the department, they would not be suppressed, but they would be suppressed if against them. It is not fair, and it is against the interests of the public and the State that this particular Clause 17 should be made part of the Bill. It will alter the whole system of law, which is based on perfect fairness between the contending parties, and I hope when it gets to the select committee it will be quietly put into that cold storage, which the Minister is making provision for earlier in the Bill.

I want to deal with two questions in this Bill. The first is the powers taken in Clause 2 (t). In connection with the tourist trips of some of these people who come out here, the Administration has been making arrangements for transport in Cape Town and elsewhere, and in the form of contract to be signed by the Minister of Railways and the contractor, this clause occurs—

I want to ask if it is correct that the department is actually charging 5 per cent. commission on tickets sold, and is actually charging commission on business introduced by it. This is an extraordinary position for the Administration to take up, and I would like to ask if it is still being done. I await the Minister’s reply on that, because the matter was brought to my notice some time ago, and I do not think it is the right condition for the Administration to enter into. The next point is Clause 17. I thoroughly agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) as to the obnoxious nature of this clause, on the ground that it is placing the Administration in a privileged position over and above all other Government departments, because none of them have dreamt of claiming a right like this. He is placing the department itself in a peculiarly unfair privileged position as regards any person suing or being sued by the department. The hon. member for Hanover Street has pointed out the object of disclosure. At a certain definite stage of the proceedings either party can apply to the court for an order for disclosure. I think the lay members of this House ought to have this impressed upon them. A discovery order after it is made is followed by an affidavit of discovery in which each party has to swear, subject to all the penalties of perjury, that the following is a list of all documents in his possession or power, or in the possession of his agent, relative to the issue. If any person keeps back documents he is liable to the penalties for perjury unless he can satisfy the court as to the reason, and in that case there must be an order for supplementary discovery. If I take out such an order the defendant would have to show me every document he has got. On the other hand, it is open to the defendant to take out a similar order against the plaintiff, who must disclose all the papers in his possession or power or in the possession of his agent. Very often it happens that an important report is made by some official of the Government, the Railway Administration, or an insurance company, and that report has a great bearing on the case afterwards. In fact, often the case is won or lost on a particular report made on the spur of the moment without any idea of the circumstances which are going to arise. Under this clause every report of that sort made by an official of the department can be kept back. Supposing there is a collision between a motor and a train, and the insurance people got a report on the motor-care side, and the Government got a report on the railway side. Those reports might balance each other, made as they are, independently, on the spot. If the Government can hide their report and yet demand that the motor-car people produce their report, then the motor-car people go into court with the dice loaded dead against them. It is not only unfair; it is gross impropriety to demand this privilege; it is the height of impropriety.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.6 p.m.