Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Minister replied to the debate earlier on in these discussions he indicated that in reference to this question of the dispute between himself and the Airways Engineering Association, he expected us to discuss this matter. The Minister indicated that it was a serious matter. I want to ask the Minister, if it is so serious an issue in his opinion, why did he not deal with it in his Budget speech? The Association have held meetings, they have organized and reorganized and this has been going on for a period of more than five years. Yet we have this position that the Minister allows it to go on and on, until last week it resulted in a work-to-the-manual campaign. The Minister gets up in this House and says why don’t we deal with this matter when he himself has made no reference to it whatsoever in his Budget speech.

I shall endeavour to deal with the matter on the evidence, such as it is, which I have at my disposal. I think we have to look at the position in the light of the facts which are known to us as an Opposition. We understand firstly that the matter has been in dispute with the Minister and also with the Artisan Staff Association for over five years. But the Minister was not able to resolve the differences and eventually the Airways Group took the matter to the Department of Labour by way of seeking recognition or registration as a separate trade union. They achieved this separate registration and the matter was appealed against by the Artisan Staff Association and the appeal was not allowed. A further appeal was then made to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Labour in turn upheld the decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions.

This we know but the Minister gave us no facts about that. He gave us no information about that at all. But now let us turn to the Minister’s own Department. We know that representations have been made to him over the years. We also know that this matter has been the subject of two conciliation board decisions. Yet, Mr. Chairman, when I asked the Minister whether this matter should not go to the inquiry the Minister said to me: “What good will that do?” He did not admit even at that stage that two conciliation boards had already met on the issue. Here we have the position, Sir, that the Minister allows this to go to two conciliation boards. There is no reference at all in any speech to indicate what the decisions of these conciliation boards were. We do not even know to-day. I do not know and I doubt whether anybody on the Opposition side knows what happened as a result of those two conciliation board determinations. We do not know and yet the Minister says to us: “Why don’t you take this matter up with me during this debate? It is a very serious issue”. We know, Mr. Chairman, how serious this issue is. There are questions we would like to put to the Minister. Firstly, why did he allow this whole issue to go to the point where the Airways Group adopted separate registration, where they are allowed to go on this “work-to-the-manual” campaign? We want to know from the Minister what he has said to the Airways artisans that has persuaded them to call off this campaign. All we know is that there have been some meetings between the Airways artisans and some high officials of the Minister’s Department. But we do not know what has been offered to the Airways group. Secondly, by allowing this dispute to continue. what have we now? We had the Minister of Labour supporting the case of the Airways artisans and the Minister of Transport opposing it. We have two Ministers, both in the same Cabinet, with a different attitude towards this serious matter. The Minister asks why the artisans in the Railway service call upon him to resign? Surely, on the information I have given to the Committee this afternoon, I think any group is entitled to say to the Minister: Resign; you do not know your job and as a Minister you have allowed this thing to go on for many years and you have appointed conciliation boards and the Minister of Labour has put forward a viewpoint. What can the workers do with a Minister of that sort? The Minister in control of this huge organization is unable to keep the peace between his workers, and when I put to him the reasons for all this difficulty he accused me of executing an egg-dance. I say the Minister himself can only be held responsible for what has developed here. The Minister should give this Committee full information as to what has happened. What has he said to stop the “work-to-the-manual” campaign of the Airways artisans, and what has he said to the Artisan Staff Association? I think we are entitled to know the full facts and we are entitled to say to the Minister that through his complete inability to handle this position he is entitled to be called a Minister who is unable to control his staff. I have no hesitation in saying that the workers had no option but to call upon the Minister to resign, because the Minister has failed, and he will go down in history as the man who knows how to make enemies and antagonize friends.

I should like to touch upon a matter which I believe is of vital importance to a large group of Railway pensioners. I refer to the special allowance paid to Railway pensioners to supplement their pensions. At the moment this allowance amounts to R288 per annum, and it is being paid to enable the Railway pensioner to maintain a minimum standard of living. I think this is a very fine idea and one which is praiseworthy, but the payment of this special allowance is subject to the condition that the pension plus the special allowance, plus what the pensioner may earn, may not exceed Rl,800 per annum. In other words, it is subject to a means test. Human nature being what it is, the pensioner is inclined unfortunately to forget that this special allowance is a bonus and that it is being paid to him without any legal obligation to do so. The effect of this is that the pensioner is only too inclined to look only at the maximum earnings notch and to feel that the effect of this allowance is that his income may not exceed a certain amount per annum. In other words, he feels that the effect is that he is being limited to a total income of R1,800 per annum. I can personally testify to the fact that is actually the case. The Railway pensioner comes to one and says, “I am getting a pension of so much and a special allowance of so much, and all you have to pay me, all I may earn, is the difference between the total of those two amounts and the maximum of R1,800; if you pay me more than that I lose my special allowance.” The result is that the employer simply engages the pensioner at a salary which represents the difference between these two amounts, and I feel that this promotes dissatisfaction and that the Minister is then bothered with these cases. I personally made representations to him and the reply that I received—and I can well understand it—was that this allowance should be viewed in the correct light and that it must necessarily be subject to the means test and that as soon as the pensioner earns more than this amount the allowance must fall away because it is linked up with the whole of the pension structure. That we understand, but the point I want to make is that in spite of all this it still remains a fact that the Railway pensioner who is prepared to work feels that a limitation is being placed on his annual income. As I see the position it amounts to this that in actual fact the pensioner does not enjoy the benefits of this special allowance because those benefits are taken away from him by the employer. On the other hand I feel that the Administration is not achieving its purpose either, since precisely the same thing is taking place there because the employer simply pays the pensioner less. In other words, the only person who benefits is the employer. It amounts to this that the Railway Administration is actually subsidizing the employer by means of this special allowance. Sir, it is not for me to offer a solution, much as I should like to do so, but I do feel that the Minister should consider the question of fixing a maximum by linking the pension and the special allowance together instead of fixing a maximum which represents the pension plus the special allowance plus earnings. I know that the reply will be that this can hardly be done because the one is paid out of revenue and the other out of the pension fund, but I do feel that the Minister should give this matter his serious consideration, and if it should appear eventually that absolutely nothing can be done in this matter, then I would suggest that in framing his next Budget the Minister should very seriously consider the question of paying this special allowance even in cases where the maximum income is R2,000 per annum. I feel that a sum of R2,000 per annum is not too high for the pensioner to maintain the standard of living to which he was previously accustomed. I raise this matter although I appreciate all the difficulties connected with it, but I do believe that I have a duty towards the pensioners in my constituency who really feel aggrieved in this regard.

The hon. the Minister, year after year, as proof of the efficiency with which the Railways are run, tells the House that the S.A. Railways is the only system in the world that manages to balance its expenses and revenue, and the Minister argues that proves the efficiency of the Railways. As a statement of fact, that is not quite correct. He must be well aware of the fact that at least the Swiss and Dutch railways also run at a profit every year, but that is a minor point. The important thing that the Minister omits to take into consideration, of course, is that our system of railways in South Africa, together with the harbours, is probably the most completely monopolistic system in the Western world. To my knowledge, there is no other railway system in the world that enjoys the monopoly that our system does. I would like to give some illustrations of that. Normally, in most of the Western countries, your railways have to compete to a greater or lesser degree with water transport, with road transport, air transport and pipe-line transport, but what is the position in South Africa? Whereas in most of the free world, particularly in America, there is a considerable measure of competition between these various methods of transport, in South Africa none of this competition exists.

Let us take road transport for a start. We know that it is tremendously curtailed in this country by legislation. The Viljoen Commission pointed out in para. 407 that the Union is probably the only country in the world where restrictions are imposed on the ancillary users on the movement of their own trade. The Commission recommended that greater freedom should be extended to ancillary users to move their goods over longer distances where these goods are unsuitable for transport by rail, either because they are fragile or easily damageable, or because delay causes deterioration in their value. The Commission points out that this is the only country where the manufacturer is not free at least to transport his own goods. In addition to that, the Minister must be aware that road hauliers are more restricted in this country than anywhere else in the world.

Order! The hon. member is making a second reading speech now.

On a point of order, we are discussing the Minister’s salary.

The Viljoen Commission pointed out that the restrictions on road transport in South Africa are such that road transport is severely restricted compared with overseas countries. They quoted from a study made by a prominent man, who pointed out that, whereas in most European countries the ton mileage of good conveyed by rail is three times as much as that conveyed by road, in South Africa it is no less than ten times as much. That shows to what extent road transport is restricted in this country, so one cannot really say, as is certainly the case in many European countries and in America, that there is a considerable measure of competition between road and rail transport.

Let us take air transport. To my knowledge, the S.A. Railways must be the only railway system in the world which controls the air transport system of the country. In most other countries the air transport companies are independent of the railways and can. to a large extent, compete with them in tariffs, etc., as well as the transport of passengers. So, in this respect also, South Africa is quite unique. Now the Minister knows full well to what extent the Railways are able to stop the development of pipe-lines to transport oil and petroleum fuels, for the simple reason that it is one of the most profitable lines for the Railways to convey, and they are not likely to give it up easily, even if a case can be made out that transport by pipe-line is far more economical than by rail.

When it comes to water transport, the cheapest transport of all, the Minister has a monopoly. We are one of the few countries with no extensive inland waterways. But we are fortunate in having a coast and in having three of our biggest industrial centres situated on the coast. The cheapest way of transporting goods, or at least certain types of goods, is by way of water, but here again the Administration uses its powers to restrict the coastal transport to a minimum through port rates and other devices. Here again, our railway system is probably unique in that it controls the harbours of the country. In no other Western country are the harbours controlled by the railway system. To sum up, the Minister is in the fortunate position of being a complete monopolist. In few other countries has the head of any railage system the complete monopolistic powers to compel transport to be carried by rail when it could more economically be carried by other forms of transport. From what I have said, it is quite clear that the Minister virtually controls all forms of transport in this country directly or indirectly. As he is a complete monopolist, he can, therefore, do what any monopolist can do. The moment your expenditure exceeds your revenue, all you have to do is to increase rates, and that is what has happened here. I do not blame the Minister. It is the whole system. In fact, if his arguments are correct, then our Railways have always been highly efficient ever since Union.

May I ask a question? Does the hon. member want to divorce the four transport systems from one another?

I am not discussing that topic now. [Interjections.] I was developing the argument that the Minister said that the proof of efficiency on the Railways is the fact that expenditure and revenue balanced.

I did not say that.

The Minister should look at his Hansard. I took a note yesterday and read the papers this morning, but I have not got the Minister’s Hansard. He is reported to have said that proof of the efficiency of the Railways is that expenditure balances income. I say that has happened all along because of this peculiar system we have in South Africa. that the Minister has a complete monopoly of transport.

I never said that.

Then the Minister must have been reported wrongly in the papers, but I will look at his Hansard. The Minister has often said it in the past also, and it crossed my mind: How can the Minister make a statement like that, because expenditure and revenue have always balanced right from the beginning, because the Minister is the most complete monopolist in the country.

Pretoria (East), the constituency which I have the privilege to represent, is the biggest constituency in the Republic at the moment, as far as the number of voters is concerned; it also has the greatest number of Railway servants and according to my estimate—and this is an arbitrary calculation— about 60 per cent of those Railway workers are artisans in the mechanical workshops at Koedoespoort. Generally speaking the Railway workers are housed around Koedoespoort, in suburbs like Môregloed, Koedoespoort, Waverley, Villeria and Silverton and at the moment the majority of them occupy houses with which they have been provided under the efficacious house ownership schemes.

The conditions under which these artisans are working are extremely favourable. The buildings have ample space and the lighting and the ventilation are excellent. Under those circumstances we expect good work from those people—and we are getting it. But in addition to that there are also the ordinary facilities, and they also have recreational facilities. I notice too that in the capital estimates an additional amount is being made available to complete the building of the recreation club. Furthermore, these workers enjoy the privilege of parking their motor-cars in garages. There are few departments which provide those facilities to their employees. Those garages are being provided at a very low economic rental. The artisans are loyal workers; they faithfully discharge their duties and I believe that, like any other group of employees, they too are interested in wage increases, but I want to emphasize that those artisans are loyal to the Administration and to the Minister, so loyal that they have not come forward with ill-conceived demands for the Minister’s resignation. I am very pleased about that. I hope that group of artisans will not associate themselves with the demands which have been made by artisans elsewhere.

The total capital invested in those buildings and in the equipment at Koedoespoort amounts to approximately R18,000,000 and expansions are constantly taking place still. A further large sum has been made available on the Estimates for this purpose. These workshops are the biggest in the Republic and certainly in the Southern Hemisphere.

The workshops at Koedoespoort are dependent mainly—and that is the point I want to make—on their own fire-brigade equipment. There are the usual fire-hoses, fire-extinguishers, and fire-buckets, etc., in the various buildings, and in addition to that they have one fire-engine which is equipped with modern fire-fighting apparatus. The fire-brigade station is close to Koedoespoort and stands on about 600 square feet. The crew consists of two officers and eight men. These persons do receive an elementary training in connection with fire-fighting. The training consists of two weekly parades, lectures, rescue work, etc. The fire-fighting staff consists of ordinary workers at the workshops. They are mostly artisans and they are only employed in the fire-brigade on a part-time basis. My humble opinion is that the training should be more intensive and more efficacious having regard to the increasing capital value of the workshops. The remuneration or the allowance of the part-time staff is as follows: The principal officer receives R10 per month, the first officer R7 per month, and each fireman R5 per month. If there is to be more intensive training, it will also mean an increase in this allowance. My humble opinion is that this allowance is extremely low and that consequently one cannot really expect much from those men. I understand that the interest is fairly limited. A higher allowance would mean that greater demands could be made upon them and that better discipline could be applied to them. All this would be in the interest of the protection of the buildings. Basically these firemen, in the event of a fire breaking out, have to render the same service that full-time firemen are called upon to perform; the requirements are the same.

My plea to the hon. the Minister therefore is that these firemen should receive a higher allowance and that hand in hand with the higher allowance the training should also be made more intensive and more efficacious. Perhaps it will be necessary at a later stage to bring about an expansion in connection with the fire-brigade station, but at this moment I am fully convinced that if the fire-brigade staff we have there at the moment is trained more intensively, the position will be adequately met for the time being.

The hon. the Minister expressed the opinion a moment ago that I did not understand him correctly yesterday. I should like to remove all misunderstanding and I want to read out to him therefore what he said yesterday—

And now I should like the Minister to listen carefully—

I said something else before that.

No, I quoted from the first paragraph.

You left out a sentence.

No, I did not leave out any sentences; it is not my habit to leave out sentences.

I said that it was the most modern system in the world.

Let me read the rest now; I quoted from the beginning of the paragraph—

I suggest that one has to be a sea lawyer to be able to infer from what the Minister said here that he did not mean that proof of the efficiency of the Railways was to be found in the fact that expenditure and revenue balanced.

You only have to be sensible.

In that case the hon. the Minister must not say that I misunderstood him.

You did not hear me correctly.

Very well, I am prepared to accept then that the Minister did not mean that; that he simply expressed himself very badly.

He did not know what he was saying.

But I want to raise another matter here. The Minister says that proof of the increased efficiency of the Railways is the fact that in 1956-7 the Railways transported 57,000,000 tons with 234,000 men, and that this year the Railways transported 90.2 million tons with a staff of 214,000. The hon. the Minister talked about an index of productivity. I hope that is not the index of productivity on which he bases his policy, because what the Minister is doing here is this; he includes his whole staff and not only the staff involved in the transportation of those goods; he also includes his construction staff, and the fact of the matter is that in 1956-7 his capital investment was at least 25 per cent higher than this year. It follows therefore that he must have had many more labourers and persons engaged on construction than in the past year.

How many were on contract?

The Minister knows that better than I do, but the point I want to make is this; if the hon. the Minister wants an instrument to measure efficiency, he should not use such a clumsy instrument. With the whole of his statistical service behind him and with all the officials at his disposal, he ought to be able to work out a much more refined index of productivity, because the figures which he has given here simply do not measure productivity for they include staff who have nothing to do with the transportation of goods. When the Minister said that he had an index of productivity, I hoped that it was something that rested on a scientific basis, and that is something that I would have welcomed very much, because there is no doubt that if the Minister has a good index of productivity he will have one of the strongest criteria and bases on which to formulate his wage policy. It does not help the Minister to tell us, as he did yesterday, that over the past five or six years he has increased wages by R30 or R40 or R50 million, because if the worker’s productivity is higher he is entitled to receive a higher wage, and a globular figure such as that has no meaning. If the Minister is able to work out a good index he will also be able to follow a more real wage policy. I just want to refer to the fact also that it is to be hoped that the productivity of the Railway worker is increasing. I only hope that the Minister will give us a more scientific assessment in that respect. I just want to point out to this Committee that since 1956 the capital investment in the Railways has increased from R895,000,000 to R1,556,000,000, an increase of R661,000,000—a total increase of almost 70 per cent. The facts which appear from this are alarming to a certain extent when one sees how rapidly the ratio of revenue to capital has been falling over this period. In 1955 it was approximately 35 per cent; in 1961 it was about 27 per cent, and when we take the increased revenge on the new investment of R661,000,000 it means that to-day this new investment of capital has a yield of 16 per cent. To me that sounds rather low; that is the gross revenue derived from this capital investment, and the question arises whether, if this trend continues, it will not only be a question of time before the Minister will have to come back again to this House to announce higher tariffs.

I rise to bring four matters to the notice of the Minister. In regard to his policy and the services rendered by the Railways to South Africa as a whole, I want to point out that we are very fortunate that in the past five years the Railways have assisted agriculture by way of rebates on rail tariffs to an amount of R15,022,775; that is of course rebates on fertilizer, on the transport of stock from drought-stricken districts and on the carriage of fodder. But it has always been the policy of the Railways particularly to act as a stimulus for the industrial development of South Africa. We trust that in implementing the policy of the Minister, as he has always tried to do, to be able to move all the traffic offering, he will particularly devote attention to providing for agriculture the necessary transport with the necessary speed required when it comes to exporting products. I am thinking, e.g., of the transportation of maize for export. With this whole policy of the Minister, he has found it necessary to electrify certain routes, thereby providing faster traffic there and consequently effecting a saving. I want to mention one example only, although I could mention two or three. I am thinking, e.g., of the section between Volksrust and Germiston which is now being electrified at a cost of R5,035,400. We know that in the first place this will result in a saving of R639,808 in running costs between Union and Volksrust, but if one deducts depreciation and interest and capital redemption, it is still a saving to the Railways this year of R246,808 as the result of electrifying that section.

But this policy also affects another aspect which concerns the platteland, and it is in this regard that I want to ask the hon. the Minister for assistance. There are various towns in the platteland which have really been built around a railway. I think, for example, of Volksrust. That is a town which was established in 1887. 60 per cent of the inhabitants of Volksrust are connected with the Railways —60 per cent of a population of 2,800. With this new policy it is obvious—and we just cannot get away from it—that there will be changes made in the staff and also a tremendous decrease in the staff. Volksrust will, for example, lose 70 members of the staff as the result of this electrification. It also affects the Railways in this regard, that these are people who have been firmly established there for years, who have purchased houses there and who to a large extent have put down roots there. Not only are they being uprooted, but the value of their property is affected because there are no purchasers when they are transferred to other areas, and they suffer tremendous loss. The town itself loses the pur chasing power of these people, whose salaries amount to R200,000 per annum. The town will now lose that money, which was spent and invested there. There are also other aspects in this regard. Such a town has perhaps entered into contracts with the Railways. This particular town delivered 90,509,000 gallons of water to the Railways at a payment of R8,833 per annum. The town will now lose that, and to a large extent it will lose taxable properties to a value of R491,228.

My request is that the Railways in their future planning, where certain capital investments are made by the Railways in regard to housing and workshops which in the first instance are established with a view to steam locomotives, should investigate whether it cannot be used in another way by the Railways instead of making a new capital investment in another place. I know that it will perhaps be difficult because the Railways like to centralize their workshops as far as possible, because in that way they can effect economies. But where they have already made capital investments I want to ask the Minister to issue instructions for a special investigation to be made in this regard to ascertain to what extent the alteration in this service will also result in other services being rendered in such places. I am thinking, e.g., of welding plants where rails have to be welded together. Instead of building a new welding plant at, say, Danskraal or elsewhere, it can possibly be done here and in that way assist that town, which was established on the basis of the railways, to retain its personnel, even though they are no longer occupied in the same capacity, as, for example, as fitters and turners. In that way one could assist the platteland. Mr. Chairman, I mention this because this phenomenon may result in serious depopulation of certain areas in the platteland and it results in a chain reaction if a platteland area becomes depopulated as the result of this policy of the Railways. No Member of Parliament or any other person can blame the Minister for proceeding with electrification and applying economies because it is his primary and greatest task to handle the traffic in the most economic manner, and I think South Africa can be proud of its railways and of a Minister who has already succeeded, to use his own words, in being able to offer services to South Africa in the economic sphere, but we again want to emphasize it and ask that assistance should be rendered.

I want to ask a second question. I want to request that the Railways should consult with other State Departments in regard to development. I should like to mention this example. Some time ago we approved a certain amount of money being made available to the Department of Water Affairs for the Pongola Poort Dam. We made provision for almost R2,000,000 for re-laying the railway line because the area between Gollel station and Candover will be submerged. In this regard I foresee another development, namely this: Gollel has always, to a large extent, simply served a protectorate. Those 4,500 morgen which were planted to sugar cane and which also made use of Gollel will now be submerged. The real and main traffic will now come from Pongola, and with the relaying of the line, which will still touch at Gollel, one will be approximately 16 to 20 miles from Pongola. If the hon. the Minister is thinking of economies, I would say that it would be uneconomical merely to re-lay the line and still to let it touch at Gollel whilst there must be road transport services under the aegis of the Railways to feed Gollel from Pongola. Therefore it is very important that consideration should be given to whether it will not be cheaper and whether it will not effect a greater economy and whether it will not be a better service immediately to link a place like Pongola with the line, so that we can immediately eliminate the road motor services which we know is an expensive service and a difficult one to maintain and which is never a satisfactory service, and then to load this traffic on the trains locally and transport it from there. Sir, I know that this is not the occasion to make requests on behalf of one’s constituency, but this matter is of national interest. When I spoke a moment ago about electrification and the depopulation of the platteland, I was thinking, for example, that if one day the railway line to the Eastern Transvaal was electrified—and it will have to be done—a town like Waterval Boven will land in the same difficulty. [Time limit.]

Last year I made a plea here in connection with the treatment of Coloureds on the trains. The Minister devoted attention to the matter and I must say that I have good reason to be very grateful because there has been a great improvement and fewer complaints. But this year there is something else I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister, and it is in fact a fairly delicate question in the minds of the Coloureds. I am referring to waiting-room and cloakroom facilities on the stations. In general they are all for “Whites” and for “non-Whites” and the Coloureds are not satisfied with this non-White business, because non-White also includes the Bantu and they are not quite satisfied with that. In this regard I want to make a plea to the Minister.

But you are now pleading for apartheid.

I do not expect everything to be done in a single day. It should be done as and when finances allow of it, but we must see whether we cannot meet these people. Particularly in the case of the better class of Coloured, it is absolutely essential that the Minister should try to do something in this regard. I should like to see the “non-White” notices changed to “Coloureds” and “nonColoureds”.

We have now had the opportunity of listening to the Opposition for two days and I want to say immediately that as I summarize their speeches they amount to the same old complaints to which we have to listen here every year. In this regard the hon. members for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) and Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) received the highest marks. We could not take them seriously in this debate. In past years they also came here every year and shouted, “Fire, fire, wolf, wolf! the Railways are going under; the Railways are going insolvent, and with them also the Nationalist Government”. That is one of the prophecies they made every year. But in spite of that, the Railways have gone from strength to strength and the best proof of it was this surplus they have this year.

We are now in the Committee Stage.

Yes, I know that. We can have no better testimonial as to the progress of the Railways and the general conditions on the Railways than the surplus this year, in spite of all the gloomy predictions to which we have had to listen year after year. The United Party, by adopting this type of criticism and attitude, reminds one of something we read about in the Bible, that Gadarene gallop, the road on which we find the United Party every year.

We are gratified that we on this side of the House have the privilege heartily to thank the Minister, his general manager and all the staff, even the man who stands on the railway line to see whether all the screws are still tight, the ganger, for the services rendered to South Africa. This expression of thanks also applies to the United Party. In my constituency all the United Party supporters are satisfied and grateful, so much so that last year at the general election the seat was given to me and to the National Party unopposed. In 1943 we began with a majority of 127 and over the years, until the general election last year, confidence in the National Party grew to such an extent that Lichtenburg is now amongst the unopposed seats in the Republic of South Africa, and that is another testimonial. The United Party makes all kinds of accusations here, sometimes very recklessly, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) did a few days ago and in regard to which the Minister dealt with him. Sir, the National Party and the Nationalist Government and the Railways are going from strength to strength. We are reminded of the years when we as farmers could not get our fuel, fertilizer and other agricultural requirements transported by the Railways from the coast; we also think of the problem with which commerce was faced in those years in regard to transport. It was then that the hon. the Minister committed himself by promising that he would remedy everything that was wrong within five years, and who in South Africa can deny that he did so? We are reminded of the position in regard to the transport of our animals to the markets in those years; we are reminded of our grain and our crops which had to be taken to the coast, and we also think of the shortage of coal there was in Cape Town in those years. To-day we no longer hear about those problems, but in spite of that the United Party comes here with criticism which is anything but constructive.

I should like to take this opportunity to express my thanks on behalf of all the public bodies in my constituency …

There we have it again!

Yes, it is obvious that hon. members opposite do not like it, but we on this side do not like the attitude they adopt either. On behalf of all those public bodies—I have been specially instructed to do so—I want to express our appreciation for the new station building which will be built at Lichtenburg this year. [Interjection.] Yes, that is the other way of serving one’s consistuency—not by hurling all kinds of irresponsible accusations across the floor of the House. Mr. Chairman, that station building is very necessary. The accommodation and the facilities there compare very badly with the general progress of the district of Lichtenburg. We are grateful for the service which will be given to us there. And here I should like to couple the name of the general manager to this improvement. He personally visited Lichtenburg at our request and he agreed that the improvement was essential. We are grateful to him. We are also grateful for all the services provided at Coligny station. Large amounts of money were spent there to supply water and building up the premises; it was all very essential, and we are glad that those improvements were made.

I want to thank the Minister for something else also, namely, for reinstituting the subsidy on flying clubs for which I have been pleading here every year.

In conclusion, I just want to say this. For the past two years I have been pleading for a grain elevator at East London which will do much towards reducing the transport costs and the production costs of maize. I hope that in this respect the Minister will give us a favourable reply and that he will insist on its being done as soon as possible.

Earlier this Session certain questions were put to the hon. the Minister of Transport in connection with the running of the Orange Express ten years ago and in 1962. The replies to these questions seem to indicate a curious position on which I would like to enlarge. The details to which I refer will deal with the year 1952 and the year 1962, an interval of ten years. It was felt that by taking the year 1952 one could reasonably assume that the difficulties which had arisen as a result of the war and the dislocation resulting from the war years were now over and that the situation in the Railways had become more or less normal again. Taking the running time of the Orange Express between Cape Town and Durban we find that over this ten-year period an improvement of ten minutes has been effected in the running time. Other factors are also of interest because during that time 327 miles of track between Cape Town and Beaufort West have been electrified; the running time between these two points has been improved by 55 minutes. The journey used to take 11 hours and it now takes ten hours five minutes. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that the current timetable shows no time of arrival and departure at Beaufort West, and yet a change-over is effected from electric to steam traction at this point. Over this distance from Cape Town to Beaufort West, delays of 92½ minutes involving 12 stops for water when steam traction was employed, would appear to have been eliminated. One could then reasonably assume that the time taken to cover this distance could have been reduced still further beyond the time of 50-odd minutes. From Beaufort West to Harrismith. a saving of 22 minutes for taking on water has been effected. In 1952 135 minutes was required whereas in 1962 the time allocated was 113 minutes. Various improvements in the performance of locomotives and the doubling of the track have resulted in the travelling time between Ladysmith and Durban being improved to the extent of a saving of 52 minutes. Sir, I make the total of these savings from Cape Town to Beaufort West 92½ minutes, from Beaufort West to Harrismith 22 minutes, from Ladysmith to Durban 52 minutes—166½ minutes—and yet the Orange Express is arriving in Durban only ten minutes earlier than it did ten years ago. Sir, I tried to find a reason for this curious position. I found, using the official time-tables as a reference, that the total times for scheduled stops amounted to 98 minutes in 1952 and 181 minutes in 1962, an increase of 83 minutes; that whereas in Kroonstad in 1952 the timetable allowed ten minutes to transfer the engine from one end of the train to the other. the time taken in 1962 is 30 minutes, and that whereas the Orange Express spent eight minutes in Ladysmith in 1952, it now spends 24 minutes. The same applies to Pietermaritzburg, where in 1952 nine minutes was necessary, whereas 30 minutes appears to be necessary ten years later. I have calculated the saving in travelling time as being 166½ minutes. If one deducts the 83 minutes additional time for standing at different stations and the ten minutes resulting from the earlier arrival of this train, from this total, one is left with the total of 70½ minutes which is unaccounted for. As I see it, either the train is travelling more slowly between certain points or it must be making a number of unscheduled stops which appear to be necessary now and which were not necessary ten years ago. The journey from Durban to Cape Town follows a similar pattern.

The time taken from Durban to Ladysmith has been reduced and a saving of 59 minutes has been effected. There is the saving of 22 minutes in taking on water between Harrismith and Beaufort West, and 92½ minutes between Beaufort West and Cape Town. This gives a total of 59 plus 22 plus 92½, in all 173½ minutes. An improvement in the time between Beaufort West and Cape Town has resulted in the journey taking 47 minutes less than in 1952. The overall gain shows that the Orange Express now takes one hour less to make the journey despite an apparent saving of 173½ minutes. There has again, however, been a considerable increase in the time spent in stations, which was 109 minutes in 1952, and now is 181 minutes, an increase in lost time of 62 minutes. The same pattern is apparent and reads as follows: Ladysmith eight minutes in 1952; 24 minutes in 1962; Harrismith 11 minutes in 1952; and in 1962 it was 29 minutes; 15 minutes in 1952 in Bethlehem and 25 minutes in 1962; 16 minutes in Kroonstad in 1952, and 25 minutes in 1962; De Aar 15 minutes in 1952 and 25 minutes in 1962. There has been a slight reduction in the stopping times at Pietermaritzburg (one minute) and Bloemfontein (five minutes). One is again led to believe that the number and duration of the unscheduled stops has increased considerably during the last ten years. This pattern seems to persist in other system, but for lack of time I am not going to enlarge on that.

I am led to believe that the arrival and departure times of these long-distance express trains present particular problems to the officials in charge of the large termini such as Cape Town and Durban, because these times must be so arranged that they interfere as little as possible with the smooth running of the suburban services at peak hours when everything is operating at full capacity. The improvements being effected in Cape Town as far as the provision of a new station is concerned indicate sound advanced planning and co-ordination of future needs. The position in Durban is somewhat different. There is a suspicion in the minds of many people that this Government is preserving for posterity Durban station as a national monument. This may be a noble sentiment, but efficiency should have priority over sentimentality. The Durban complex seems to be suffering severely as a result of the reluctance of the Minister and his Department to initiate urgent steps to provide a railway station in keeping with the dignity of the city and in recognition of the fact that Durban is the major port in the Republic.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has indicated that major improvements have been effected, and are still contemplated by the provision of more efficient forms of traction and the doubling of existing tracts. The hon. the Minister has indicated too that the revision of the timetable is due in July. I submit that a substantial reduction in the times of the running of these various express trains is long overdue. This improvement I have referred to has involved tremendous expense in capital development. Further large sums of money have been allocated to concessions to staff, and over the last ten years expenditure under this head has amounted to approximately R78,500,000. It would seem as far as express passenger services are concerned that the expenditure involved has been more or less nullified by the substantial increase in the loss of man-hours. To estimate this amount should not be impossible, but it is a disturbing thought to know that every day of the year a large amount of money is being wasted by train crews who are having to snend a greater portion of their time standing idle at various scheduled stops, when they could be actively carrying out the functions for which they are being paid.

And while I refer to train crews, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the wonderful courtesy that has always been displayed by all the members of the lining staffs and bed-services and train crews on these express services.

The repercussions among the travelling public too cannot be disregarded. A reduction on overall running time could effect a considerable saving in the “lost” time in manhours as far as passengers too are concerned. It is submitted that this factor should receive urgent attention. It may well be that the decrease in the number of first and second class long-distance passenger journeys, amounting to 238,058, or a little over 3 per cent of the total, could be due in part to the fact improvements in travelling comfort have not been accompanied by a corresponding reduction in travelling time. [Time limit.]

There are a few matters I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister, the first being in regard to Langlaagte station. The platforms there are too short. We have two subways there, one for the Whites and the other for non-Whites, but they serve no purpose in view of the fact that the platforms are too short. When the train arrives it is inevitable that Whites and non-Whites intermingle on the platform and we receive serious complaints about this. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to extend the platform there. It can in fact be done to the south. It is very important. Then I come to the station building itself. It is antiquated. The Minister is aware that there has been tremendous expansion, which is still continuing, in regard to industries in the vicinity. Langlaagte is well known as an industrial area where there are all kinds of factories and tremendous use is made of the station, which is too small. The offices are inadequate and the officials constantly complain. I think the matter deserves investigation.

Then there is another matter which I brought to the notice of the Minister a year or two ago, but I find that it is so important that I want to bring it to his notice again to-day, and that is in connection with the shunters. There is a shortage of shunters and it is difficult to find suitable men. In view of the fact that it is the Minister’s policy in granting increases not to make exceptions in regard to certain types of work, I still think that an exception should be made in respect of shunters. They are the people who do the dangerous work on the Railways. They must do their work in all weathers. When it rains or when it is cold they have no time to seek shelter, and the reason why the Minister cannot get enough shunters is because the salary is very low. These shunters either try to get better positions or to become ticket examiners, because their salary is so low. I want to urge the Minister to devote serious consideration to the position of the shunters.

Then there is another matter which I have already brought to the notice of the Minister in the past, and that is in regard to a certain type of house which was built in Langlaagte North during the regime of the United Party. It is necessary that the Minister should have thise matter investigated. The whole house is only 22 by 14 feet and when one enters the front door one can see right through the back door, and I am not exaggerating. One finds families of six or seven living in these small houses. And these houses stand on valuable sites where better housing could be provided. I want to ask the Minister to demolish these houses and to build decent houses there. It does not redound to our honour that families should live in those little houses. We know it was the policy of the United Party only to give the worst to the railway worker, but we must now remedy that.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister does not require some relief from the burden of praise which has been placed on his shoulders during the last few days. Sir, I assume that he is a modest man, but if I had been in his place, I would have urged upon my colleagues on the Government side of the House to stop burdening me with this load of bouquets and flattery, and hanging so many garlands round my neck, and rather to get on with the job which, as I understand it, is the job of this Committee, viz. to find out where the flaws are in the Railways Administration however efficient it may be, and what can be done to improve the service. If that is the position, and if, in fact, the Minister does want to hear constructive criticism, then I submit he has had some constructive criticism, at least from this side of the House. But whenever somebody has said something which, on the face of it, appears to be worthy of consideration, a member on the other side gets up and says in effect: “This is typical of the United Party; they say our railway system is no good; they criticize the Minister”, and then, taking a leaf out of the book of the hon. member for Lichtenburg, they say: “This is the finest railway system in the world, and this is the finest Minister of Transport in the world.”

Hear, hear!

The hon. Minister may want a change from that line, and I want to tell him something about railways from the point of view of the user. I think there is a very important distinction between what I, as an individual, may think of a certain service in terms of the Budget for that service, in terms of reports on it, and what I may think of it as a user of that service. I wonder how many people in this House make a practice of travelling in trains. My impression is that most people, as far as those present are concerned, when they go on a long journey prefer to go by air, and if they have to come to the House, for instance, they either need no transport at all or they come by bus or by car. But those people who use the train every day, as the users of the suburban service, for instance, or those who use the train fairly frequently on long journeys, are, in my humble submission, in the best position to offer criticism—whether constructive or otherwise— about the service. Now I want to tell you, Sir, that the Minister and his Department realize that there is a need to convince the public of the efficiency and the convenience of the railway system. This is proved by an advertisement which I have before me and which appeared in the Sunday Times last Sunday, as it undoubtedly has appeared also in other papers. It is curious how the Sunday Times keeps on creeping back into this debate. Among newspapers, apparently, the Sunday Times is the paragon as far as the S.A. Railways system is concerned. Here you have a fairly large advertisement, and you see there illustrated a man with his feet up, in a very comfortable position. It reminded me of what the hon. Minister said last night about the way he used to sleep for an hour or so with his head on a lump of coal, a little piece of waste between that and his head, and his feet up on the tender. But here you have somebody sitting in a very comfortable position, your typical long-distance railway traveller. And the caption is: “What a change to travel by train!” Then the rest is quoted as being the opinion, or the statement of this traveller: “I am high-powered when it comes to business. That is why I usually travel by plane, but last month, just for a change, I went by train, and what a change! Did you know about the S.A. Railways big modernization programme? Neither did I, till I found myself in one of the new steel coaches, undergoing ‘soft goods’ treatment at the hands of highly attentive stewards, all products of a special Stewards’ Training Centre; the dining-car was air-conditioned, and food and wines of the best. So I asked questions, and learned about improvements all round…. Long journeys are shorter now.” He apparently never consulted the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood). “Long journeys are shorter now, smoother, more silent, more comfortable.” Now the odd thing about this is that there is a great deal of truth in this advertisement, as I can vouch for. But, Mr. Chairman, there is also a good deal which is merely good copy-writing, and I looked through the establishment of the Publicity and Travel Department, which employs some 299 people, and I did not come across the designation “copy-writer”, who, as you know, Mr. Chairman, would be the sort of employee who would write this kind of material. So that apparently it is either done by an outside agency, or it is done, say, by the Editor employed by the Publicity and Travel Department, for whom the salary for this year appears in the Estimates at R3,291—or possibly by the Minister! But whatever the case may be, I submit that it was not written by somebody who rides in one of those long-distance trains. That is the point, because all this about “improvements all round” does not seem to convince the travelling public, especially when you consider this in the light of the Railway Administration’s own knowledge, which is revealed by the next portion of this advertisement, no longer in quotation marks, apparently coming direct from the Administration—

The important fact is that many people who used to travel by train on long-distance journeys have long ago given up travelling by train. Hence this appeal in the advertisement. In fact, it is a common thing nowadays to hear people say: “I have not been on a train in 25 years”, understandable partly because of the fact that there is air transport, there is the motor-car and, of course, there is the fact that people do not like to spend more time on a journey than they have to.

You had better come down to the complaints; your time is almost up.

There is reference in this advertisement to the Trans-Karroo express. Now, according to the booking arrangements that one investigates beforehand, there is supposed to be at least one shower bath, one shower in every coach on this Trans-Karroo express, and, as every travelling person would do, I, for example, on 28 January, having booked myself on this train weeks ahead, and having booked specifically to travel in a coach which had a shower, endeavoured to take a shower on the first morning of my journey, but, lo and hehold, it was established after many inquiries that in the entire length of this train of 16 coaches, which, with the exception of two, I think, were all first class, there was not a single shower! Now I want to guarantee to the Minister that of the several hundred people who were on that train-—many of whom I happened to know, and many of them were heard to complain audibly—he has probably lost 50 good first class long-distance passengers for the next 25 years. It is not enough to say that was unique. The fact of the matter is that when you offer a person a choice in fares and accommodation and you say: “This is first class, and it costs you so much, and you get so much”, then you must deliver the goods.

I agree.

Since the Minister agrees, I can save my other complaints for another period, if I should be fortunate enough, Mr. Chairman, to catch your eye.

I really rise to plead that more attention should be paid to the human factor in this great undertaking of the S.A.R. & H. with its more than 200.000 employees. This great undertaking not only controls the fate of those 200,000 people, but also that of their families, amounting to perhaps 800,000 people. I ask that the human factor should never be forgotten in this organization.

The danger that humane considerations may be overlooked in such a gigantic organization run on strictly business lines is not only a vague possibility but it is a real danger and it should not be allowed to take place. One can get good service only from workers who are happy. The great industrialists and business men of our time fully realize that and therefore in most cases they establish personnel departments to devote attention to the human factor and humane considerations. In these departments attention is paid to the most minor grievance or requests, and as far as possible grievances are remedied because it makes every worker feel that he is important, that he counts. It boosts his self-respect and makes him happy and therefore he becomes a good worker. In this respect we are fortunate enough to be able to say that at the head of this great undertaking, the South African Railways, we have a Minister who is imbued with this spirit. Here I can talk from personal experience. I have often had to go to him to submit matters to him relating to railway staff, and he has always been prepared to lend a sympathetic ear, and not only to listen but also to take action on their behalf. All I want to say further in this regard is this: I trust that this good example set by the Minister will also influence all those in authority in this great organization and that they will realize that however minor a problem may seem, to the man before them it is a very real problem, and sometimes even a matter of life and death.

Unfortunately it sometimes happens that the human factor is not sufficiently taken into account. I am reminded of a railwayman, whom the Minister knows because I discussed the matter with him, a man who came from the Pietermaritzburg district and who now lives in my constituency. He is a shunter on the Railways. For 15 years he served on one station near Pietermaritzburg. Therefore he appears to have been a good railwayman. He rose to become a leading shunter. Not only was he a good worker but he also loved his work. He did not regard his work merely as a job, but as a real vocation, because his wife wrote to me as follows—

This man must therefore have been a good worker and consequently a happy one. But there is one problem in the life of this family. They have a little daughter who suffers from asthma. In the damp Pietermaritzburg climate her health suffered. The doctors advised them to leave Pietermaritzburg and to go to a drier climate. The shunter applied for a transfer. It was refused. He repeatedly applied for a transfer, but it was always refused. Eventually this man was compelled to resign his job as a shunter, and he had not been in the Transvaal long when he was again employed as a shunter, but he had to start again from the bottom and lost his 15 years of service. Now it is my honest and humble opinion that a transfer could have been arranged for this man in these circumstances so that it would not have been necessary for him to lose 15 years of unbroken service. I therefore plead that the example set by the Minister in taking into consideration the human factor will be followed by all those in authority in the South African Railways.

When the hon. the Minister participated in this debate last night he, in passing, indicated what his attitude is in regard to the Railway personnel and stated that he had the interests of the railwayman very much at heart, and that he could make no distinction between one group of railway workers and another. Now I accept that is also the Minister’s attitude in regard to railway pensioners, because these people, although they are no longer actively in the service of the Railways, nevertheless in most cases devoted their best years to building up this great undertaking. When we study the position of the pensioner we find that there is a certain group of pensioners who, due to circumstances over which they have no control, receive a smaller pension than people who go on pension now, or who went on pension a few years ago. I am referring here specifically to the people who retired a number of years ago when the salaries were still relatively low and the cost-of-living allowances were minimal. To-day we find the position is that they receive much smaller pensions and that in many cases they struggle along in poverty. We have been told during the last few days what a wonderful organization it is and what a splendid record it has, but I honestly believe that there are people to-day, railway pensioners, who live in circumstances which do not redound to the honour of the Railways. I say that in all humility. These people also devoted the best years of their lives to the Railways. In many cases they were the pioneers in so far as the Railways are concerned. To-day they are old; they have no associations to do the work for them and to protect them, and because of their advanced age they themselves are unable to do anything to protect their interests. When one is still in the flower of one’s youth and one is poor, things are already difficult enough, but when one grows old, when one is approaching the end of one’s life and one is poor, then I feel that life must be intolerable. That is why I would like to break a lance here for those people, because I also have a few of them in my constituency and I believe that in other constituencies throughout the country there must also be some of this old guard. I believe the Minister cannot be unsympathetic in regard to these people, and I wonder whether he will be prepared to consider appointing a departmental committee to investigate the position of these old pensioners, to investigate their living conditions and then to report as to what can perhaps be done to improve their lot. I believe that neither the railway staff nor the other pensioners will blame the Minister if exceptions are made in the case of these old people, because I believe that their lot is such that it deserves the sympathy of all people.

I have every sympathy with these pensioners and I know in what difficult circumstances some of them live. The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser) also referred to the matter and pleaded for the consolidation of the temporary allowance with the pensions so that the means test could disappear. What hon. members must understand is that the pension received by a person is the result of a contract he entered into with the Superannuation Fund, and the pension is based on the amounts he contributed during the years he was working. Therefore pensions cannot simply be increased ad lib and the burden put on the Superannuation Fund. All that can be done, as was done in the past, is that when it was recommended by the Superannuation Fund Committee, on which the staff is also represented, that there should be an increase in pensions and that the fund could bear it, after having received an actuarial report, then it could be done. What the State has done to assist these people was to grant them this allowance some years ago. The allowance is subject to a means test. In other words, if a man has employment and earns a certain amount, the allowance falls away. The introduction of the allowances was intended to assist those pensioners who receive very little. The means test was essential because the man who perhaps receives R2,000 or R3,000 per annum as a pension does not need the allowance. Nor is it intended for the man who has a good job and who perhaps earns R100 a month. It would be unfair to pay him an allowance, too. That is why the means test was introduced. A few years ago the means test was increased, but every increase in the figure set for the means test results in an expenditure of hundreds of thousands of rand, because so much more must be paid to so many more pensioners. And the Minister of Railways cannot act on his own account in this regard. It is a uniform means test and a uniform allowance which is paid both to Public Service pensioners and Railway pensioners. There must therefore be joint action by both the Minister of Finance and the Railways, through the Minister of Transport. This matter was considered this year when the Budget was framed, but unfortunately, due to the financial position, nothing could be done about it. I repeat that I have much sympathy for those people. I know under what conditions they have to live. Those who still have employment, who still have an additional income, can live decently, but those who are simply dependent on this small pension find things very difficult. That was one of the reasons why the personnel so emphatically insisted that there should be consolidation, because it appreciably increased the pensions of future pensioners. A railworker who is today the most lowly paid employee in the Railway Service, as the result of this consolidation of the cost-of-living allowances receives an increased pension of up to 40 per cent— his pension will be increased by up to 40 per cent the day he retires. That is why I told hon. members that I regard consolidation as being much more important than an immediate increase in wages. Because at the time when the man, as my hon. friend over there said, really needs that income, it is better that he should then receive a proper pension than to receive an immediate cash benefit now.

In so far as consolidation is concerned, that cannot be done. The hon. member himself replied to that, because the allowances are not paid from the pension fund; they are paid from revenue. There are also other reasons for it. If consolidation is to take place, it means the means test will have to be abolished, and then it means that only certain pensioners will receive the benefit of it; in other words, those who are entitled to this allowance. The means test will have to disappear, and only those pensioners who are entitled to the allowance will receive the benefit of consolidation. But one cannot have consolidation with the pension, because then the Superannuation Fund would have to pay the whole amount, and from the very nature of the matter that cannot, of course, be done.

The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) mentioned the case of a shunter who was compelled to resign because he could not get a transfer. Let me say immediately that the management is very sympathetic towards any application for a transfer when there are sound reasons for it. In cases like this, where a child suffers from asthma, if it is in any way possible to grant a transfer the management does so. But now the hon. member will appreciate that when a man is practically indispensable at a certain place, so that one cannot afford to lose his services at that time, it is very difficult to grant a transfer. Particularly in Pietermaritzburg and Natal, where we have a serious shortage of shunters, it is usually very difficult to grant such a transfer. The hon. member will now say that in any case the man resigned and provision had to be made. That is so. But then it should also be remembered that when a man is transferred there must a be a vacancy at the place to which he is transferred, and there are not always vacancies. But my instructions years ago already were that applications for transfers, when there are sound reasons for them, should be considered very sympathetically. It may be that sometimes cases have occurred where it could have been done but was not.

Now, from the very nature of the matter, a man who has resigned must again start at the bottom. That cannot be avoided, even though he has the very best reasons for resigning. If he comes back and starts again, he has to start at the bottom, because otherwise an injustice will be done to those servants who did not resign and who are still in the service. If this person were again to have started as a leading shunter at Boksburg or Braamfontein or some other place, it means that the shunters who for all these years worked under difficult conditions and who were waiting for promotion will find that they cannot be promoted. Then they turn round and say: We were faithful to the Administration; we had just as many difficulties, but we did our work. This man resigned and now he has come back and he is appointed over our heads. The hon. member will realize that if that principle were to be accepted it would cause large-scale dissatisfaction amongst the employees. Then we must also have a deterrent for people who resign. If a man resigns and thinks he can come back to the same job, it will be no deterrent. That is another of the reasons why people who have resigned should again start at the bottom.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) raised an important matter. I want to say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that I am certainly not allergic to criticism. As a matter of fact I welcome constructive criticism also any suggestions made to improve the standard of efficiency and the service. I fully agree with the hon. member that we should not advertise goods that we cannot deliver. If we advertise that showers are provided on the express train they must be provided. I will have an inquiry made into this case to see what the reason was that it was advertised that there were showers but that showers were not provided. I say, in general, I agree with him that we must not advertise goods that we cannot deliver.

*The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) said that the platform at Langlaagte was too short. I do not know whether there are good reasons for extending it and whether it is possible to do so. But in any case I will instruct the management to investigate the matter. In regard to the station building, if the hon. member was present here yesterday afternoon and last night, you will remember that I replied to him fully and stated that however sympathetic I might be, there are so many stations where new buildings have to be erected that they must simply await their turn. Langlaagte will also have to await its turn, and there are probably numbers of stations where the buildings are even worse. I repeat that the capital funds are limited.

He pleaded for an increase in the wages of shunters. Let me say immediately that if there is one group of the personnel towards which I am very sympathetic it is the shunters. I know from practical experience the nature of the work they have to do and the constant dangers to which they are exposed. I also know how difficult their job is, how hard they have to work and the long hours. They often have to work as the result of the shortage of shunters. But it is very difficult to raise their wages, because then their wages will overlap the wages of other grades to which they have to be promoted. It is, for example, the natural thing for a shunter to be promoted to ticket examiner or conductor. But if one raises the maximum wage of the shunter it overlaps the minimum wage of the ticket examiner or the conductor, and then there is no incentive for the shunter to accept promotion. That is one of our problems. What I have in fact done is to ensure that the facilities they get will be improved as much and as speedily as possible, so that their conditions of work may be improved in order to make them happier in their work. and to give them better clothing and shoes. But if in future it is in any way possible to do anything more to assist these people, the hon. member may be rest assured that I shall certainly consider it.

In regard to the houses at Langlaagte, that is a matter which may be considered, but there are still many places where there are no houses at all, and of course those places will have to receive preference before we can demolish houses, however bad they may be, and replace them with new ones.

I find that the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Wood) had made an intensive study of the running times of the Orange Express. He must have spent quite a considerable time on this research. I want to suggest to him that if he loses his seat to the Progressive Party he should make application to my Department. We have a special Department for research; we may be able to employ him there.

In regard to running times it is not only a question of the running time between stations but there are many factors that have to be taken into consideration. Delays are often caused through having to wait for other trains to cross. The convenience of passengers has to be studied. For instance the departing times of trains cannot be in the middle of the night. That inconveniences passengers; or trains cannot arrive in the middle of the night. There are certain important intermediate stations where you have to consider the convenience of the passengers as far as the arrival times of the trains are concerned. But in regard to the speeding up of this train and many of our other trains, that is a matter which is receiving attention at the present time. We are waiting until all these improvements on the lines have been completed. Then, of course, you have to use a dinometer car to test out the different speeds of the train and to see what delays can be obviated. This matter is however receiving attention and I hope that the running times will be considerably improved in the near future.

*I can only tell the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr, M. C. van Niekerk) that in regard to the grain elevator at East London that is still a matter for negotiation between the Mealie Control Board and my Department. I said so last night already in reply to another hon. member.

I then come to the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux). I am glad to see, Mr. Chairman, that the representatives of the Coloureds are such strong protagonists of apartheid. That is why they generally make such a good impression in this House, because I know they wholeheartedly support apartheid. The hon. member shakes his head, but he pleads for apartheid between the Bantu and the Coloured. Well, then I must assume that he also accepts apartheid between Whites and non-Whites. In any case, that is merely in passing. It is very difficult to provide separate waitingroom and lavatory facilities everywhere. It means that there will have to be three sets of these things, for Whites, Coloureds and Bantu. Then there will probably have to be a policeman to ensure that the Bantu does not use the lavatory intended for the Coloureds, or that he does not make use of the waiting-rooms. But I feel that there is a need in this regard and what we are trying to do, instead of stating that it is only for non-Whites, is to say that it is for first and second-class passengers. If that is done at certain stations, we assume that the Coloureds, particularly the more well-to-do Coloured and the type the hon. member has in mind, will make use of the first-class facilities. I may say that is a matter which is receiving my sympathetic attention, and wherever we can make concessions to the Coloured community in regard to the provision of these facilities, the hon. member may rest assured that we shall do so.

I just want to repeat, for the benefit of the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) that I did not sa[y that the fact that the Railway Budget balances is proof of efficiency. It would be ridiculous tc make such a statement, because he stated quite correctly that in the past 50 years the Railway Budget balanced in certain years and that in other years there was a deficit. It is not an indication of efficiency. One can say that to some extent it is an indication of efficiency when costs continually increase—an unavoidable increase—and that revenue remains fairly constant, as in the case of any other transport undertaking, and we then still succeed in balancing the Budget without increasing tariffs. But I do not regard that as proof of efficiency at all. I gave other proof for it. I can also give the hon. member the assurance that we have a very sound and thorough scientific system for measuring the productivity of the workers to-day.

Will you publish it?

Apart from the hon. member, very few people will understand it. It is a very complicated and technical matter, as he himself will know as an economist. But I can give him the formula on which it is based and how it is cultivated at any time. I will do so with pleasure. Then, in regard to a so-called monopoly, I do not really know what the hon. member’s object was in devoting ten minutes of his speech to proving to the House that the South African Railways have a monopoly. Surely that is well-known. It has never been disputed.

Therefore you must be careful.

No, I need not be careful. I stated the facts, and those facts are true. But his facts are not always correct. There is, in fact, a monopoly to some extent, but I want to say that the tonnage transported by road to-day is much greater than the tonnage transported by the Railways. There is in fact co-ordination between road and rail transport, there is some measure of control, but it certainly is not the case that road transport is restricted too much and that it is so detrimental to our economy. My hon. friend quotes Dr. Verburgh, but most of his conclusions are based on assumptions. If the hon. member reads particularly his latest book he will realize that. I recently had a survey made, something we may not discuss in this debate, of the quantity of goods transported by road, and the hon. member will be surprised to see that estimated tonnage over a period of a year, and also the number of permits issued. But because we have such a sound co-ordinated system in South Africa, that is one of the reasons why our Railways can be made to pay, whereas in Britain, where they do not have such control, they have already written off £500,000,000 in losses and this year they are providing for a loss of £42,000,000 on the British Railways. If we were to throw it open, we would be in the same position.

It may have a healthier effect on our economy.

No, it is not healthier. I deny that. I think it would be harmful to our economy as a whole if there were to be free competition between road and rail transport. It will be absolutely harmful to our economy, and there will be a tremendous economic setback if that is allowed. What is peculiar, Sir, is that it is only the business men who plead that there should be exemption, but the industrialists, at all the meetings I have had with them and with their organizations, have never yet pleaded for the exemption of road transport.

But they do not ask for total exemption. Look at the report of the Viljoen Commission.

Yes, but there is already a tremendous degree of exemption. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) has again touched on the important matter in regard to the possible reduction of staff at Volksrust as the result of electrification. I could quite understand that he is concerned about the future of Volksrust. On a former occasion I stated that I would do everything possible to allow as many members of the staff to remain there as possible. But the hon. member knows that we cannot obstruct progress in this world, and the use of electric traction is a great improvement on the use of scheme traction, and particularly on that section it is imperative. In that case, of course, the Railways cannot merely brush aside all economic factors. One cannot, simply because one feels sorry for a town which will lose a number of railwaymen, keep special workshops in operation there which are uneconomic, particularly when there are already workshops which can cope with all the requirements. These are all factors which have to be taken into consideration. I have said before and I want to repeat that Volksrust will be treated as sympathetically as possible, but it will not be possible to keep large workshops operating in Volksrust. For ordinary maintenance, etc., these artisans will be made use of, but no large works can be undertaken.

The hon. member made an interesting suggestion in regard to relaying the line to Gollel. It is a suggestion which I will certainly have investigated to see, now that the relaying will have to be done, whether it cannot be relaid to Pongola. What will eventually have to come, when the Makatini Flats are developed, will be the joining up of that line with Piet Retief in order to have a railway line to the markets in the Transvaal. That is one of the priorities in regard to the building of new lines in future.

The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) asked for larger allowances for part-time firemen at Koedoespoort. He said that if there was more intensive training it would justify the payment of increased allowances. I will ask the management to investigate whether it is necessary to give them more intensive training. I do not really believe it will be necessary because a part-time firemen does not mean much training. Nor do I believe it is necessary to keep full-time firemen there. I will ask the Management to go into the allowances paid. I cannot give any reply at this stage.

The hon. member for Amhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) reminds me of a locomotive pulling a very heavy load up a steep grade and emitting clouds of black smoke and making a lot of noise, but the wheels are slipping all the time and he makes no progress. In regard to the Airways artisans the hon. member said that I did not raise it in my Budget speech. But the hon. member completely missed the point which I made in my reply. The point was this that those hon. members opposite are so anxious to exploit the grievances of the railwaymen …

You have been proved wrong.

No, I have not been proved wrong. I have been proved quite right and I am going to advance further proof. My point was that the hon. members of the Opposition were so anxious to exploit the grievances of the railwaymen that they spent hours discussing the grievances of the Artisan Staff Association in regard to their pay claims but in regard to the grievances of the Airways artisans they never said a word about that, except the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, because they were afraid to adopt a standpoint, either one way or the other. They are afraid they will lose the support either of the artisan staff of the Railways or the support of the artisans of the Airways. That was my point. There was no necessity for me to raise the matter in my Budget speech. None at all; why should I have? But the hon. member completely missed the point that I made in my reply Let me tell the hon. member this. If his information is that this question of recognition was discussed by the conciliation board, he is completely wrong.

My information was that the question of whether they should break away from the A.S.A. was discussed.

No, it is a matter which has nothing to do with the conciliation board; it was never discussed by that board. It is not within the jurisdiction of the conciliation board and it is not their function to discuss differences between different sections of a staff organization. The conciliation board only has to deal with working conditions, wages and things like that.

It was referred to the board.

No, nothing was referred to them, except the demand by the artisans in 1956 or 1957 for increased wages. That was discussed by the conciliation board, but not the break-away. The Airways artisans themselves decided to resign from the Artisan Staff Association. They maintained that the Artisan Staff Association did not represent them. They maintained that their conditions of work were different from those of the Railway artisans. They maintained that it required a much higher degree of technical skill to do their job than it did to do the work of an ordinary railway artisan.

And the Minister of Labour agreed with them.

No. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) always talks about labour matters and he should not make statements such as that. He is completely wrong and I will tell him why the Minister of Labour agreed to it. They resigned from the Artisan Staff Association and formed their own organization. They then applied to the Minister of Labour, to the Department of Labour, for registration as a trade union. That was granted by the Registrar of Trade Unions on the grounds that they were representative of all the particular workers in their particular group in that particular area. The Registrar had no option but to grant them registration and the Minister of Labour, on those grounds, had no option but to reject the appeal of the Artisan Staff Association. If the hon. member for Yeoville, who always talks about labour matters, will take the trouble to read the Industrial Conciliation Act he will see on what basis they were granted registration by the Department of Labour. They were registered as a trade union and after that requested me to give them recognition which I refused. The reason why I refused recognition was this: If I had granted them recognition I would have opened the door for any dissatisfied group in any staff association to break away, form their own organization, obtain registration as a trade union on the same grounds as the Airways artisans obtained it and then ask me for recognition. Hon. member must remember that there are some 630 different grades in the Railway service. There are some staff organizations that represent more than a hundred different grades and between certain of those grades there is absolutely no common interest at all. For instance, in the Salaried Staff Association: There is no common interest between a clerk, and a pilot on a ship or between a clerk and a pilot in the Airways or between a clerk and a foreman in a workshop. There is no common interest there. But once having created the precedent that I recognize break-away groups, I will not be able to refuse recognition to any other group which breaks away. If that happens there will be chaos on the Railways.

What about the pilots?

They have their own organization under the aegis of the Salaried Staff Association. In other words, I do not recognize them, but only the Salaried Staff Association. But they have come to an arrangement with the Salaried Staff Association that when representations are made to the Minister they can send their representatives along together with members of the executive of the Salaried Staff Association to discuss and negotiate with the Minister or the Management. [Interjection.] That is a matter for the Artisan Staff Association and discussions have been taking place between these two organizations. Now that is the position and I do not think there is any hon. member who will disagree with my standpoint. Hon. members will remember that Mr. Sturrock introduced this identity of interest division amongst the members of the staff. I do not think that any member would advocate the recognition of any break-away group. It will mean the destruction of all our present staff associations, because there is dissatisfaction amongst many grades about the representation they have at present, and if I had to create this precedent and give them recognition, I will throw the door open and it is quite possible that within a few years, instead of having seven staff associations representing the railway workers we might have 70, and that will create chaos. Now the hon. member can say whether he agrees with my standpoint. The Airways artisans have had discussions with the Artisan Staff Association but they have not come to an arrangement. The matter has not be finalized. The Artisan Staff Association will discuss it at their congress next week to see whether there is any possibility of making some arrangement between the Airways and the Artisan Staff Association, but they know that I am not prepared to give recognition to this separate group. It is quite right that the Airways artisans have embarked upon what they call a work-to-manual campaign on Friday afternoon. In effect, of course, that means a go-slow strike. They called it off after receiving a telegram from me, on Sunday afternoon. In regard to strikes by Railway workers I want to say with emphasis that although there is no provision in the Service Act which actually prohibits a strike, I contend that it is against the intention and the spirit of the Service Act for any railwayman to strike. I do not think it was ever the intention of the framers of the Railway Act to give railwaymen the right to strike. They are all employees in essential services and the principle has been accepted by Parliament and by the trade unions in South Africa that essential service workers are prohibited from striking. Section 46 of the Industrial Conciliation Act has been in operation since 1923. It provides that all workers in essential services, whether employed by local authorities or by private undertakings, are prohibited from striking and must resort to compulsory arbitration. That has been accepted by all the trade unions since 1923. Now, what is a more essential service than the Railway service? Section 46 provides that workers in transportation, workers employed in the distribution of food, the provision of power and light etc. are all prohibited from striking. The railway servant is not only employed in a transportation undertaking, but is also directly responsible for the distribution of food. I say that there should be no difference between railway employees and any other employees in essential services outside the Railway services. Railwaymen I contend, have no right to strike, whether it is a go-slow strike or any other kind of strike.

But you must not take advantage of them because of the law.

No, I say it is in direct conflict with the spirit and the intention of the Service Act, and I have said that in public before. That is all I want to say in regard to this matter. As I say, the go-slow strike of the Airways’ artisans has been called off.

May we know the terms of the telegram?

No, that is a matter between myself and those men. I say again my standpoint is perfectly clear. In regard to the arrangement which must be come to between the artisan staff and the Airways’ artisans. that is a domestic matter for them to decide. They have had discussions already. The matter has not been finalized yet and it is again on the agenda of the artisan staff conference next week. I do not expect hon. members to take sides on that. because it is a domestic matter between those two sections, the break-away section and the existing union, but hon. members must have the courage to say whether they agree with my standpoint that I am not prepared to give recognition to any break-away group.

I want to take a matter which the hon. the Minister has already touched on a stage further, and that is the question of his policy in regard to Railway development in the areas contiguous to Swaziland. We know that it is his policy not to proceed with the development of a harbour at Sordwana Bay and we know it is his policy not to extend the line beyond Gollel or to link the Natal system with the Transvaal system at that point at the present time, but to understand that policy one must look at the facts as they exist there and as they are likely to exist in the near future.

We have the potential development of large-scale iron ore mining in the Boma Range. which is on the western side of Swaziland adjacent to the border of the Republic. You have in addition to that the railway which is to be built from that point in Swaziland to the coast in Portuguese territory to give an outlet to that iron ore. Bearing that in mind, and also the fact, as has already been pointed out by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) that there is a sugar mill at Pongola which is not linked to a railway, you have in addition large-scale agricultural development in the southern part of Swaziland and the northern part of Zululand, together with the building at the present time of a dam at Pongola which will create further large-scale agricultural development. Now, with all these things, one wonders why it is that the policy is not to extend railway facilities in that area at present. [Interjection.] I was referring to joining up the Natal system with the Transvaal system at Piet Retief or somewhere nearby. Had that been done, it would not only have provided an additional outlet for the Transvaal, but it would have fitted in with the present doubling of the north coast line in Natal, which is taking place at present, and it would have drawn all the iron ore traffic from Boma to the port of Durban instead of that traffic going to a foreign port, Lourenço Marques, and I think it would have enabled the Minister to have extended the electrification of the north coast line which he presently intends to do as far as Duff’s Road. He would have been able to electrify that line possibly as far north as Empangeni or possibly Gollel. I need not tell the Minister the advantages that electrification has in a part of the country where sugar-cane is grown. The Minister knows the dangers from fires which stem from the use of steam locomotives. The Minister has in many cases been sympathetic in that regard, but last year the fire hazard on the north coast in the sugar belt was worse than it has ever been before. I do not suggest that all those fires emanated from the railways. We happen to know that a great many of them stemmed from other sources. But the point is that for a variety of reasons which I need not touch on now the sugar belt on the north coast, and on the south coast as well, is more susceptible to fire than it has been at any other time, and it would have been propitious that the electrification of the north coast line should have been done at present, partly because an extension in that direction is presently being undertaken, but also because there are these additional factors which, if joined up together in one scheme, would warrant firstly the doubling of the north coast line and the drawing away from Swaziland of all this additional traffic, namely the transportation of iron ore which apparently is sufficiently profitable—the Minister shakes his head, but it is apparently sufficiently profitable for a special line to be built to cope with that traffic. Why not accommodate that traffic on a line which exists for hundreds of miles along the north coast to the port of Durban, and which requires only a small spur to link it to the Transvaal system and to the proposed iron mine at Boma, and so draw off this additional traffic? These are matters which, so it would seem to me, should have been the subject of policy at present. The Minister has suggested that at some stage in the future these developments will take place and he rather tended to suggest that these matters should be postponed because the Pongola Dam still had to be built and because there would be a certain inundation of the existing line. But we know where the water line will be in regard to the Pongola Dam and the replanning of that part of the line should presently have been undertaken. One can see where that line must go, and I cannot see, unless the Minister has reasons which this side of the House are not aware of, why these developments which seem, on the face of it, to be capable of co-ordinated development should be put off for some time in the future.

There is a certain area of the Republic the importance of which I am afraid is not realized sufficiently in regard to the development which can take place there. That is the Northern Cape. Now I do not want to expatiate on all the potentialities of the Northern Cape, because I think it has been done before and I believe the Minister of Transport is acquainted with it, and he can also obtain all the necessary information. But in regard to food production, the Northern Cape is one of the most important parts of the Republic. And not only in regard to food, but also in regard to raw materials and minerals it is important, and I want to ask the Minister to consider electrifying the railway line from Kimberley to the north—and I do not mean to Rhodesia but to Johannesburg. I think that in view of the tremendous potentialities of the Northern Cape, this is a matter of the utmost importance, and one which deserves the serious attention of the Minister.

Not only that, but also in view of the new policy being adopted in regard to border industries, the potentialities of the Northern Cape are very great indeed. I predict that in the near future we will also see tremendous expansion in that direction there. Therefore it is very important, in my opinion, that not only the line to the north but also to the south should be electrified.

Then there is another matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister, namely, that he should consider the possibility of building a line from Warrenton to the Free State goldfields. It is difficult to form an idea of what the tremendous expansion may be in the Northern Free State, in the goldfields area. As I have already said, with the Northern Cape’s tremendous food production potential I think it will be very advantageous to the Railways to build a new line from Warrenton or Kimberley to the goldfields. If it should be decided to build it from Warrenton, I am instructed by the Municipality of Warrenton to inform the Minister that Warrenton will do everything in its power to provide the necessary facilities and to make it as easy as possible for the Railways to build that line. I may just mention that recently great developments have taken place in regard to housing at Warrenton, and I presume that with those developments, the large area which is available to the Railways, the Minister will realize that to build a line like that from Warrenton will not cause any difficulty but will be one which can be developed in the best interests of the Railways.

I just want the Minister to consider these few matters and I hope he will see his way clear to acceding to this request.

In replying to my earlier remarks, the Minister has made a statement which I am afraid can be misinterpreted unless he says a little more before the end of this debate. He has made it quite clear to me, anyway, that to give effect to what he has said in regard to the strike action an amendment to the Service Act or the Act that controls the present position …

I say it does not allow them to strike.

The present position is that once they have gone through all the machinery there is nothing to prohibit them from striking.

By implication.

Yes, by implication, but not actually in the law. I think this is the first time the Minister has made a statement of this sort in this House.

No, I have said it before.

I know that as Minister of Labour he has said over and over again that workers in essential services should not be allowed to strike.

It is not I who said it, but the Act.

I think we should have it abundantly clear. The Minister as an exMinister of Labour, and with the knowledge he has of labour legislation, will know that once the threat of a strike is removed from a trade union, that trade union then loses all semblance of being a union and it is not in a position to go to the end in its negotiations, as far as collective bargaining is concerned.

No. What about all those trade unions for workers in essential services? Have they all gone down the drain?

My point is that by not having the right to strike as a last resort …

But they have not got it and they have not had it since 1923.

Some of them have it. The Act was amended about five years ago and it extended the scope of those who were considered to be workers in essential services. I do not wish to put words into the Minister’s mouth, but I am quite sure that what he has said to-day will be interpreted by the artisan staff and others as meaning that the Minister intends not only relying on what he considers to be the spirit of the Act, but to introduce amendments which will make it abundantly clear that any strike action by any trade union in the Railway Service will definitely be illegal.

I think that was the intention the Minister had, when he said he wanted to make it abundantly clear.

I did not say that.

That is why I have risen, because I think it would be fatal if the impression gathered from what the Minister said is that he intends to introduce legislation to make it legally impossible for any trade union in the Railways to take any sort of strike action, whether it is a go-slow strike or a full-out strike. In view of the fact that the artisan staff are meeting next week, I think it would be disastrous if they were to gather the impression that the Minister is in effect saying to them: Conform or I will amend the Act. I think that if the Minister can clarify this position it will be of great assistance all round. I might say that for a transportation undertaking such as we have in South Africa, for this sort of talk to take place at a time when the Minister has a machine which has cost millions of pounds to build up, and for the Republic to be placed in this type of labour difficulty now is, to say the least of it, disastrous. My own feeling is that the Minister should use every endeavour and that his whole attitude towards negotiations should be one of change. He is in a position to negotiate, but you cannot negotiate on the basis of “I have the big stick”, and that is what we have come to, I am afraid. I appeal to the Minister before it is too late that he should make it abundantly clear that he does wish to negotiate, and that it should be clear to all those who meet him that he is keen to negotiate.

They all know it. We negotiate on numerous occasions every year.

Yes, but my difficulty is that we have had expressions not from one centre but from all centres that the Minister is not negotiating … [Interjection.] The Minister enters the conference room with these trade unions and then claims that his hands are tied.

That is not true.

Well, it may not be true, but they have that impression.

No, they have not. They know better.

But they do not, and that is the whole point. We have seen it in the Press, and I know from conversations I have had …

You are referring to the statement made by the Artisan Staff Association and that statement is wrong.

No, the Minister will, I think, agree with me that the most militant staff association on the Railways is the Artisan Staff Association and time and time again it has been through their militancy that improvements have been achieved for the whole of the staff. That is why when we talk about the artisan staff we know we are dealing with a very important cog in the Railway machine, and it is no accident that it is like that. The artisan staff, because they are independent of railways, have a strength in negotiating that the others have not got, and that is why they appear to be more militant than other groups. But I say to the Minister that unless there can be a different approach towards negotiations, we are going to run into trouble at a time when we have a transport machine which must be run by a satisfied staff if we are to obtain the maximum benefit.

At this late stage of the debate I should like to touch on a matter which is really of national interest and I hope that the Minister will listen to me sympathetically. I refer to the future policy of the Railways in regard to Saldanha Harbour. It is an incontrovertible fact that here we have the most natural harbour of any along our coast.

It is a gift given to us by nature and I cannot conceive that we should consider the final future of this harbour as being one where fishing boats can berth and as a harbour to be used by the Naval Gymnasium. It is a neat and large harbour, a natural harbour, and I think the time has arrived for us to think along broad lines in regard to the future of this harbour.

Now it has come to my notice that the Committee which investigated the development of Table Bay Harbour in 1958, inter alia, recommended that this harbour should be developed as an oil tanker port. I should just like to ask the Minister whether further consideration will be given to these recommendations.

I was also glad to learn that when this harbour was handed over to the Defence Depart-men on 1 January 1960, it was done on the express condition that any alterations made to this harbour would be subject to the approval of the Railways. That clearly proves to me that the Railways are thinking of the future of this harbour on broader lines than the present set-up we have there to-day. I may tell the Minister that one of the great difficulties in regard to the development of this harbour throughout the years has always been the question of water. Just recently it has become clear that the Berg River can be further developed to the advantage of the vicinity and of this harbour, not primarily as an agricultural project but particularly with a view to establishing a new industrial area there. I may say that numerous industrialists are already making enquiries as to the possibilities in this area after water has been provided. I now want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible for us to have greater clarity in regard to the future of this harbour. For the economic expansion of this complex it is essential that we should have clarity, and that we should know whether there are further plans, and whether in future the expansion of this harbour will be considered. I want to conclude by asking the Minister whether it is not possible that at this stage we can have a very thorough investigation in regard to the expansion of Saldanha Harbour.

Last night when the House adjourned I had been dealing for a few minutes with the question of the clerical staff in the Railway Administration. I hope to have this opportunity to put to the Minister certain points in regard to the difficulties facing the clerical staff. In the General Manager’s annual report for 1960-1 it is reported that there is a dearth of experienced clerks throughout the service. I think that is a serious situation, because in regard to clerical staff, they constitute a large portion of the members of the Railway staff and they perform important duties. I know from my experiences in a large milling firm with which I was connected, the discrepancies that arise from time to time in the compiling of Railway accounts, the large adjustments which have to be made due to undercredits or over-debits, which run into many hundreds of rand and perhaps many thousands of rand when taken throughout the country. Indeed, some firms which deal a great deal with the Railway Administration employ fulltime clerks whose duty it is to check the Railway accounts and to make the necessary applications for adjustments. I am sure that some less reputable firms could find that there is a large amount of money due to the Railway Administration which is not forthcoming to their revenue because of incompetence on the part of certain members of the staff. I do not want to reflect on the Railway staff, but in accordance with the reports of the General Manager there is the shortage of experienced clerks. Here I think what requires the attention of the Minister is the conditions of service of this clerical staff. It is even found that young persons who join the staff, after having become useful and after having gained experience, then go into commerce and industry because they believe that greater opportunities are available for them in that particular field. I feel that it is the duty of the Minister to embark on a recruitment campaign amongst the younger people and amongst persons with higher educational qualifications so as to attract to the services persons who will become experienced and useful members of his clerical staff, and in order to do that he must have attractive conditions of service. What is of paramount importance in the conditions of service, of course, is the salary scale. When one refers to the salary scale one is immediately impressed with the commencing salary. We find, however, that the maximum in certain designations is very low indeed. My appeal to the hon. the Minister therefore is to review his policy in regard to the scale of pay of the clerical staff so that there will be greater opportunities for them and so that they can reach the maximum at an earlier stage. As far as Grade 2 Clerks are concerned, where there is a particular shortage, we find that a Grade 2 Clerk receives a minimum of R732 per annum, and if he has a Std. 10 certificate he receives R876 per annum, with incremental notches until he reaches the amount of Rl,236 per annum. Thereafter he is subject to a test and the submission of a certificate from a sub-head or from the head of his department before he can continue and then receive the maximum allowed under that post, which is R1,956 per annum. Here I think the Minister should consider the question of improving his scales and rates of pay.

The other point which is important from the point of view of retaining his present staff and attracting new staff, is the question of a five-day week. I know that the clerical staff of the Railway Administration have made an approach to the Minister to introduce a five-day week. We find to-day that in commerce and industry a large number of organizations are on a five-day week. The majority of artisans, professional officers and others have a five-day week in commerce and industry. There is an increasing demand to-day on the part of clerical staff that they should enjoy the benefits of a five-day week, so I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give some information to this Committee in regard to the representations that have been made by the clerical staff of the Railway Administration for the introduction of a five-day week. We should like to hear whether that Committee has reported, or when he expects the Committee to report. We should like to have some indication of the Minister’s attitude in that regard. I feel that with an improvement in the conditions of service and by having a recruitment campaign in the schools through the medium of career officers and by making available literature setting forth the prospects of a clerical career in the Railway Administration and by providing additional facilities for these persons to further their studies, the Minister will be able to attract more recruits to the Railway Service and, what is more important, that he will be able to retain the services of those people who have embarked upon a career in the Railway Administration, so that with experience their work will become more and more valuable to the Railway Administration.

The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser) raised a matter here this afternoon in regard to pensions and the allowances paid to pensioners. In this regard I wish to support him. The hon. the Minister has just replied to the representations made by that hon. member, but there is another matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister in this connection. These allowances which these people receive are regarded by the majority of pensioners as a cost-of-living allowance, and I wonder whether the Minister, through the management, cannot make them understand that, in fact, it is not a cost-of-living allowance they receive, but a bonus. The other aspect of the matter is that when these pensioners have an additional income, and they then exceed the limit to which they are entitled to go, their allowance is taken away. It is very easy to take it away, and it is generally done very quickly, but when that person then no longer works, and just draws his normal pension, it takes months, and sometimes very many months, before he is awarded that allowance again. I should like the Minister to devote his attention to this matter, because we experience quite a lot of difficulty in this regard.

The hon. the Minister told us yesterday already what his policy is in regard to the representations made for new station buildings. I understand, of course, that the Railways has to work to a plan, but I am sure there is such a thing as merit, and I take it that if ten or 12 years ago there were plans made in regard to a certain number of buildings to be erected, changed circumstances could have come about in the meantime. I am thinking now, for example, of the establishment of industries near such a place where a station is being asked for, or an increase in the population. I have such a station in my constituency, viz. Despatch. Despatch is a town with 20,000 inhabitants, but when there were only 200 inhabitants they had precisely the same station building with which they have to be satisfied to-day. In the meantime it is true that platforms were built, but then platforms are built on many branch lines. There are thousands of people living at Despatch who make use of the train services every day, and on rainy days they must just be satisfied to stand in the rain. One feels that, perhaps, they have a legitimate claim when they ask that something should be done for them in this regard. I want to point out that in the Cape Midlands Section there are quite a number of smaller stations which, in recent years, obtained better station buildings, and they are stations which do not cater for so many people in a year as Despatch does in one day. I trust that the hon. the Minister will give sympathetic attention to the wishes of these 20,000 inhabitants of Despatch.

It was the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) who said that a happy worker was a good worker. Well, that is the experience of all of us, and that applies throughout the country. The happier the worker, the more one can expect from him. The position is that the Railway workshops in Uitenhage, which were built as long ago as 1875, have hardly been improved at all, or very little, during the past ten years. In some of those workshops conditions prevail which make it very difficult for a man to do his work properly. I want to mention Workshop No. 16. There the people must work all day under conditions which are not very pleasant, and, when they knock off at night, there is only cold water available with which to remove the paint sticking to them. Representations have already been made in regard to improvements there. I want to ask the Minister to give heed to these representations and to speed up the matter.

Then there is Shop No. 21. I just want to mention the few workshops which, in my opinion, really deserve attention. In Workshop No. 21 conditions are very bad also, and good work simply cannot be done. I have just recently heard that this workshop will be replaced by a second-hand one from Bloemfontein. It will, in any case, be an improvement on the present position. Then there is Shop No. 3, where the space is so restricted that it is simply impossible for the workers to render their best services. I feel that if it can be expanded somewhat, the production will increase. But the worst of all the workshops there, I think, is Workshop D. The roof of this workshop is so low, and it becomes so tremendously hot in summer, that only with the utmost exertion can decent work be done. Even in winter it is hot in that shop. In addition, it means that the people who work in that heat must go out into the cold and expose themselves to the danger of contracting all kinds of sicknesses. The last one I want to mention to the Minister is Workshop No. 23, where the conditions also leave much to be desired. I may just say that the workshops at Uitenhage in the past, and to-day still, rendered good service. During the last war quite a lot of war material was manufactured there, and, if necessary, it can be done again, and I believe that Uitenhage is entitled to claim that its workers, who are in the service of the Railways, should be enabled to work under decent conditions. I trust that the Minister will see his way clear to do something for us in this respect. But I finally want to invite the hon. the Minister or the General Manager, or both of them, to come and inspect those workshops in order to be in a better position to judge of the conditions there.

On 14 November last year I was in Pretoria attending the funeral of that brilliant engineer, Dr. van Wyk who was by chance my brother-in-law, and on that day I read in the newspapers of the drowning in the Uvungo Lake near Port Shepstone of a young man from Cape Town by the name of de Goede. I did not think any further about this but on the Thursday evening when I returned home, the grief-stricken parents came to my house. These were Afrikaans-speaking, indigent parents whom I knew in the constituency of False Bay and they told me that the police had come to their home on that day to tell them that the body of their son had been found and that they did not know how to get the body here. The Member of Parliament concerned was the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing who was then in Pretoria. They told me that the child had previously been a labourer for a few months on the Railways. I took the liberty of going to the telephone and within two minutes I telephoned the hon. the Minister of Transport at his home in Pretoria. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of those parents, I wish to express the gratitude of those parents and also of myself as well as on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing on whose behalf I acted. The following afternoon at 4 o’clock the police came to the parents’ home to say that the body of that young lad was on the way to Cape Town at the expense of the Railways. Under the circumstances I feel that I am personally grateful to the hon. the Minister for his amenability under those circumstances and for the manner in which he acted because I myself had to deal with that tragic case. I took the liberty of doing what I did and it is an encouragement to me, if something of this nature is ever again my lot, to do the same as I did and to tell the hon. the Minister: “Uncle Ben, these and those are the circumstances”, and I hope that I will obtain the same results.

There is another matter which I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. For some time now it has been brought to my attention from time to time and recently there was an article in this regard in the newspaper, Die Banier, which circulates chiefly amongst the Coloured population. This article was included in one or the other of our daily newspapers. I have various voters or friends and acquaintances who are members of the Union Coloured Council. Some of these people are in the position, as a result of business or other circumstances, of being permitted to fly to Cape Town and back, but if they return, then from where they alight they have to travel by train to their homes. Under these circumstances it came to light that these people, educated, decent, civilized people—the only difference between themselves and myself is the fact that they have skin of another colour—are dealt with as first-class passengers on the aeroplanes. When they alight from the aeroplane and they board the train to travel further to their homes they may perhaps be in a reserved first-class coach or in a coach with reserved first-class compartments under the most miserable circumstances in the sense that they may perhaps have a first-class compartment but that the rest of the coach is occupied, without any discrimination, by, for example, some of the most poorly-developed type of Native. Let me put this clearly on behalf of those persons and on behalf of others who find themselves in the same position. This is in no way a case of racial friction or of wishing to stir up feelings against another race but, Mr. Chairman oil and water do not mix. Just as little as the European mixes with a Native, as little does the Coloured mingle in the social sphere with the Native with a third-class ticket.

Hear, hear!

From the hear, hears it appears to me that some people are beginning to realize that! I feel that persons in whom this Government has the confidence to nominate them to the Union Coloured Council, which permits them to travel to Cape Town and back by air, are merely examples of what is generally the lot of the Coloured when as a citizen of South Africa who only has a colour different to that of the hon. the Minister and myself and other members, he finds himself under those circumstances. It it were to be a European with the same educational qualifications, with the same standard of living and on the same economical level, he would feel bitter and deeply dissatisfied. I hope that my plea together with that which was made last year by the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) in the same regard will not fall on deaf ears and that provision will be made for these people on the South African Railways.

I do not wish to stick my head in a hornets’ nest, neither do I wish to release the cat amongst the pigeons; I do not wish to have anything to do with the authorities in the labour sphere and with the political arguments which deal with the so-called objections of the artisans staff association. I would just like to tell the hon. the Minister that I am not going to deal any further with the matter but if the hon. the Minister really experiences great difficulty, then he must remember one thing and that is that there are many Coloured artisans who also want work and if the hon. the Minister has a great deal of difficulty with the Europeans, he must just remember that I have many people whom I can give him.

In the implementation of the programme of electrification the South African Railways have taken a very wise, sensible and progressive step. Electrification is one of the important factors which was responsible for the Railways being able to deal with this increased traffic and which could eliminate delay and congestion to a large extent. It was really an achievement for the Railways to be able to handle more than 90,000,000 tons of traffic over the past financial year. The announcement of the hon. the Minister that it is the intention to start with the electrification of the railway line from Witbank to Komatiepoort is also a very welcome announcement. This section carries a great deal of traffic. In the past warnings have been issued that the time would come when the traffic could no longer be handled on that section if great improvements were not effected. It was said at the time that the traffic would probably increase by 25 per cent and that this increase would also have to be handled. This level was apparently reached in the past financial year. It was difficult to handle all the traffic on this section and in the past staff members of the section office had to come down to assist in avoiding congestion of traffic. We wish to express the hope that the electrification of this section will take place as swiftly as possible; that the work will be tackled as soon as possible and be given effect to because we foresee that in the near future there will be particularly heavy traffic on this section of railway. As you know there are quite a number of feeder lines, those from Lydenburg and Graskop-Sabie to Nelspruit, that from Barberton-Kaapmuiden and then the section from Soekmekaar to Komatiepoort. There has also been a great increase in traffic on all those feeder lines. With the development of Phalaborwa and the construction of the railway lines from Hoedspruit to Phalaborwa, the traffic on the Komatiepoort-Soek mekaar line will greatly increase and it will be a heavy load for the main line to carry. The hon. the Minister was himself Minister of Forestry and he is au fait with the large forests in the Eastern Lowveld, the large sawmills which are there and the heavy transport of timber which takes place from the Lowveld. Besides this the Transvaal Lowveld is also a producer of vegetables and fruit during the winter months and the demand for vegetable and fruit traffic continues to rise as well. We can also mention with appreciation the improvements which have come about in the past with the accelerated service which has been introduced. In former years it took seven, eight or nine days to transport vegetables from the Lowveld to the Cape Town market. During the past session it has happened that this produce has been delivered here on the fifth and sixth day and where use may be made of the express service, this produce is delivered here sooner. In order to be able to maintain that swift transportation of our perishable products, it will be necessary to allow that electrification to take place as soon as possible. This is a section which also carries a very heavy load of import goods from Lourenço Marques; this is also the most important line for the transport of fuel and crude oil for the Transvaal and the Rand area. This is traffic which cannot be delayed. We expect that in the near future far heavier traffic will be offered and in order to be able to handle that traffic it is very necessary that this work should be tackled and given effect to as swiftly as possible.

I want to raise very briefly a matter which I have raised with the hon. the Minister on previous occasions under this Vote, and that is the position of railway facilities, transport, for residents in the SouthWestern townships in Johannesburg. There are at the moment something like 700,000 people living there, the vast majority of whom are employed in the city of Johannesburg, and the facilities are anything but adequate. I know that the hon. the Minister has attempted to improve matters. He has provided double lines, and he promised last year that a very adequate amount of money would be set aside for the purchase of new railway-engines and so on, but the position still remains that these people have to wait something like two hours at a stretch in order to catch trains in the very early hours of the morning. The queues stretch endlessly at the station and the same applies during the peak hours when they have finished their period of employment in the city and have to go back to the townships. Sir, the conditions are unbearable for these people. They spend anything between three and four hours a day in travelling to and from their place of work, as a result of which their efficiency at work is, of course, severely impaired, with subsequent effects on the whole economy of this country. Another effect of the overcrowding of these trains is the tremendous amount of pilfering that goes on on the train. It is impossible for people to guard their possessions. The trains are infested by tsotsis at the peak hours and many a case of robbery and assault takes place on the trains travelling between Johannesburg and the South-Western townships where the African reside. It seems to me that the policing of these trains by Railway Police is inadequate, but of course. the real basic problem is the provision of adequate facilities. If the trains were not so crowded, if people were not herded together in these vast mobs, it would obviously be much more difficult for these people to carry out their illegal activities. I would therefore ask the hon. the Minister again to bear in mind the urgency of this matter. both from the practical point of view of the economics of it insofar as the efficiency of our working people is affected, and secondly the tremendous resentment which is engendered in the minds of law-abiding people who are attempting to carry out their jobs and who find themselves hindered in this way by inadequate facilities and who are constantly being preyed upon by people on the trains because of the overcrowded conditions, and lack of Railway policing facilities.

The hon. the Minister will pardon me if on every occasion I have to bring to his notice the urgent needs which exist at Vryburg at this stage. I just want to mention this and I hope and trust that he is engaged in supplying those requirements. However, I want to go further and discuss something more general and I want to submit this point for consideration to the hon. the Minister, that we must consider whether the time has not come as far as our road-motor services policy is concerned, perhaps to reduce the tariff to such an extent that it will be possible in practice for the ordinary man who has to transport agricultural produce by means of the road-motor services to make the best and fullest use of the road-motor services of the South African Railways and Harbours. I want to say immediately that there is no other instrument which has contributed so much towards developing our hinterland than precisely these road-motor services. However, I want to give the hon. the Minister the absolute assurance that with the increased production costs to the farmer, it becomes a problem to the farmer to make use of those services if he has for example to transport his fuel, his crude oil, his tractor fuel and other means of production by that service. His expenses become so high that farmer eventually finds himself just under the bread line; his production costs become too high and he has simply to provide his own transport and in this way this so necessary service loses so much support that the hon. the Minister has sometimes to resort to curtailing those services, which is a very great pity. I recommend this for serious consideration, no matter how radical the idea which I am expressing here may seem to be. With a view to the increased transport which will be carried, I believe that this will eventually show a larger profit. I want to raise another point which is of the most vital and urgent importance. In the past year we had earned an enormous amount for South Africa and also for the South African Railways from the export of maize. We have probably brought about R50,000,000 in foreign currency which was so desperately needed into the country. What has the export of maize not menat to enable the hon. the Minister to announce this surplus which he was able to announce? I would just like to tell him that our maize farmers wish to thank him for what he did as an extremely capable Minister with his staff, one and all, from top to bottom, in being able to undertake that export for us. However, I do not wish to mislead the hon. the Minister and I want to give him the assurance that far more will be expected of them in the year which lies ahead if we do not wish to waken to the fact that our surpluses are accumulating at a disturbing rate. It is for the hon. the Minister and his experts to tackle the problem. I cannot give him advice but I want to give him the assurance that if the railways transport what they are able to transport to-day and if we make available all the facilities which are to-day available, the Railways are not going to get our surplus maize out of the country. I cannot see how this can be done. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Faurie) who advocated the electrification of the line to Komatiepoort and further to Lourenço Marques so that we can make more use of this line for the export of maize. I want to ask him further to give very favourable consideration to whether it will not be possible for him, if Durban is so urgently needed for other export goods that we cannot export an adequate quantity of maize along that line to Durban, to consider whether he cannot meet us and make the Cape Town docks available to us not at the tariff which is at present in operation in respect of maize to Cape Town but to make a concession there so that it is possible for us to use the harbour of Cape Town. I ask the question: What is better for South Africa and the South African Railways: To reach a compromise and to make that harbour available to us at a cheaper tariff than the distance would justify to-day if we cannot perhaps get the maize out of the country, or for the Railways to allow that transport to lie idle and accumulate at other points where they have very wellpaying transport? I am deliberately not mentioning quantities. I know that the matter is under discussion and is being dealt with but I cannot neglect to point out the urgent nature of the position and how we and the country outside, while the Railway debate is taking place, are waiting to learn the views of this House and the views of the hon. the Minister in connection with this important and urgent problem. The farmers in the country feel concerned about the position and it will be a very good thing if the hon. the Minister will make use of the opportunity to give us an idea of the views which he has in this connection. I would just like to say again that we do of course know that provision will immediately have to be made at a place like East London; facilities to handle grain in mass will have to be created there. However, the question is how we can do this swiftly enough without the maize having to accumulate here for three or four years to such an extent that the storage and the processing thereof becomes such a task that this will mean a colossal loss. What is more, I read here a few days ago this American policy to adopt a completely different pattern. Where in the past they made the maize market of Europe available to us and other small countries, President Kennedy has now come along and said that America cannot go on in this way and she is going to place her surpluses on the market. In other words, Mr. Chairman, we cannot turn around and think that we will always retain the markets which we have today. We have to ensure that we get rid of that maize which we have in the country so that we can obtain the money for our country which we get for that maize. It is a good thing for all of us. I do not wish to go into detail. I know that the hon. the Minister is fully aware of the position and I hope that he will have an assurance for us, a statement which will assure the country generally.

The matter which was raised by the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne) has also been raised by other hon. members and I have already replied to it. The hon. member departs of course from the supposition that there will be no poor years in the future at all and that our maize harvests will increase every year. This is a possibility which we have to bear in mind. The Railways of course bear the responsibility of transporting the export maize to the ports. We have a considerable additional capacity to be able to deal with any increase in the crop in the foreseeable future. I can. of course, not accept the fact that we have to ask the same tariff to Cape Town as we ask to Durban, which is a shorter distance, because the Railways are a business undertaking and it is not fair to expect one product to be exported at a loss while other products of which the selling price is also comparatively low, will still have to bear the full tariff. How ever, what is being done is that when the Administration deviates maize from one route to Cape Town for departmental reasons, it is transported at the same tariff. The Mealie Control Board knows what the capacity of Durban is, what it is in East London, the possibilities of Port Elizabeth and of Cape Town and the full capacity which is available at those ports will at the moment be adequate for the quantity of maize which has to be exported within the next year or two. However, if larger crops are forthcoming, I doubt whether it will be in the interest of the country and then the farmers themselves will have to take action because to concentrate on producing more and more maize, perhaps with an accompanying reduction in price internally as well as externally, will not be in the interests of the farmers themselves. Therefore, it is not only a problem for the Railways but it is a problem for agriculture itself. As far as the requirements of Vryburg are concerned I would just like to refer the hon. member to item 108. page 12, and there he will see the financial provision which is being made this year for certain improvements there. In connection with road motor tariffs, this is one of the matters which will have to be investigated by the commission which I appointed. At this stage I do not wish to express any opinion in this regard at all.

I can give the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) the assurance that we are also concerned about the lack of adequate facilities for the transport of the Bantu from the southwestern areas. There has been an improvement, but it is not yet sufficient. But there won’t be any improvement until the new coaching stock is put into service.

When?

It all depends when the coaches will be delivered. They are on order now. Delivery will start within the next 12 months. That is the main reason for the unsatisfactory service at the moment.

Does that also apply in the case of Langa and Nyanga?

Yes, there is coaching stock on order for all the Bantu lines.

*I can give the hon. member from Nelspruit (Mr. Faurie) the assuranuce that the electrification of that section will be accelerated as far as possible. The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) is right when he says that it is a very difficult problem which he raised. As I have already said this afternoon, my four friends there who represent the Coloureds are strong supporters of apartheid and therefore I have a great deal of sympathy with them. Where it is at all possible to effect segregation between Bantu and Coloured, we will do so. There are of course many practical difficulties in this connection. However, the actions of the hon. members merely show how correct the Government is with its policy and as strongly as the hon. members are in favour of apartheid between Bantu and Coloureds, just as strongly are we in favour of apartheid between European and nonEuropean. Actually, therefore, we ought to a very large extent to agree. This is a problem which is receiving our attention. It is, however, very difficult to find a solution to the problem because if one wants to have a special coach for Indians, one for Coloureds, one for Malays, one for Bantu and one for Europeans on every train, this will create an impossible position. However, what we do try to do is to ensure that when bookings are made on long-distance trains the decent Coloured people are not booked to travel amongst the undeveloped Bantu. This is done as far as possible by the Department but it is often extremely difficult to determine in advance because at the booking office you only have to deal with names and you may not perhaps see the person yourself. Therefore, it often happens that there may be an undesirable mingling in a compartment. However, the instruction is to avoid this as far as possible and not only to treat the educated Coloured properly but to ensure that he can travel under decent circumstances.

May I ask whether the instruction can also not be given to the Railways staff to deal with people of that status accordingly and not purely on the ground of the fact that they are Coloureds to treat them in such a way that they do not feel at home?

The instruction is that all passengers, no matter what their colour may be, are to be treated courteously and properly, not only the Coloureds but everyone, Black, White, Yellow or Brown. As far as the workshops at Uitenhage are concerned, I can give the assurance that this is already receiving attention. A committee has recently been appointed to enquire into the whole workshop capacity position and the committee will of course have to report as soon as possible on any possible superfluous capacity, whether it is possible to centralize and whether it is possible to do away with smaller workshops. When the recommendations are forthcoming, consideration will of course be given to where improvements can be effected in specific workshops. If I remember correctly, improvements are already being effected in the foundry at Uitenhage because I know that conditions there were very poor.

When is the report of the committee expected?

It will probably take a further nine months to a year.

The hon. member for Durban Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) asked for an improvement in the salaries of the clerical staff. I am not going to discuss the wages of every separate grade of the staff. This is not the right place to do so. They have their staff organizations for that. There are 630 grades and hon. members will realize what the position would be if every member were to discuss the wages and working conditions of every particular grade. The demands of the clerical staff will always be just as favourably considered as the claims of all the other sections.

*The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) spoke about Saldanha Bay. Recently we handed over the jurisdiction over Saldanha Bay to the Department of Defence. I do not think that there are any prospects for the development of Saldanha Bay as a commercial port, not even for oil tankers, because if provisions have to be made for oil tankers, it means that all the companies will have to move their tanks and installations to Saldanha Bay. This was considered a few years ago but because of the fact that the distance by rail to the areas where there is the largest market will be far further from Saldanha Bay than Cape Town, for this reason the oil companies did not favourably consider it. There were also other difficulties. For example, the new refinery will be erected near Cape Town, or practically in Cape Town. Other oil companies do not at all intend to move to Saldanha Bay and unless they do so, Saldanha Bay can of course not be converted into an oil port.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cad-man) wanted to know why the connecting link between the Transvaal and the North Coast line is not built. If I understood him rightly, he also pleaded for a further improvement of the North Coast line by way of doubling the line for example because if we did that we might attract the iron ore from Swaziland. That is not possible. I was quite prepared to build the connection from the Transvaal line at Piet Retief or Lothair through Swaziland to connect with the North Coast line and then to build a harbour at Sordwana Bay for the export of this iron ore. Iron ore is being mined in the northern part of Swaziland. But that was unacceptable to the interested parties. It would still be a longer route from where the iron is produced to Sordwana Bay. From Mbabane, which is close to where the iron mines will be to Lourenço Marques is a much shorter route, and obviously the people who produce the ore want the shortest route. Another reason why I decided to call off the building of this line is that certain conditions were suggested by the other parties but which were quite unacceptable. Thirdly, I was under the impression that we might have a big export market for coal. If we could have exported 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 tons of coal, or even 2,000,000 tons of coal through Sordwana Bay, it would have been an economic proposition. Building the connecting line together with the harbour providing only for three or four berths, would involve expenditure to the tune of some R80,000,000 and that would certainly not be justified for the export of iron ore only. A year or two ago I sent one of our leading economists overseas to see whether he could find any markets for South African coal. He found that there was absolutely no market for coal. At the present time we export a few hundred thousand tons of coal through Durban. That is why that scheme was abandoned. But the iron ore will certainly not be transported by road to Gollel from the mine, and the authorities in Swaziland, are certainly not prepared to build a line from the iron ore mines to link up with Gollel and then sending the ore to Durban for export, a route probably four times as long as the route from Mbabane to Lourenço Marques.

They are starting to build the railway line.

Yes, I have seen that they have called for contracts.

*The hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) spoke about the possible electrification of the line between Klerksdorp and Kimberley. I may just tell him that the electrification from Klerksdorp to Warrenton is at the moment under consideration. A decision will have to be given in this regard before the end of the Session and if this is decided upon provision will be made in the Additional Estimates. There is another alternative too, to improve the carrying capacity of the line. I cannot see any sense in building a line from Warrenton to the goldfields. That section is not so developed that it will make a line of that nature economic. Neither will it be a shorter connection than the connection which already exists between Beaconsfield and Hamilton which runs to Bloemfontien. Therefore I really cannot see the advantages of it and I am afraid that this is one of the fine ideas which will perhaps have to remain just an idea.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) that what I said to-day in regard to my attitude in respect of strikes is what I have been saying for years and this is also what I told the leaders of the staff associations.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—43: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Noes—81: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruy-wagen, W. A.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Hey-stek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Luttig, H. G.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke. J. von S., Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Head No. 1.—“General Charges”. as printed, put and agreed to.

Remaining Heads put and agreed to.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works.

On Head No. 1.—“Construction of Railways”, R4,271,600,

Mr. Chairman, I see here that the line Springs/Natalspruit has now been completed and that it has also been electrified. We know that the line was built with the purpose of facilitating the coal traffic to the Free State and the Cape. Because the line has now been electrified I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible for this line to be opened for the transport of all goods. We find that the industrialists in Springs experience difficulty in having their manufactured articles delivered. They find that the delay takes place in Germiston to which the trucks are sent and where the trains are marshalled to go to their various destinations. I think that if the traffic of the Eastern Transvaal can go to the shunting yards at Welgedacht where the trains can be marshalled and go through on the Springs/Natalspruit line to the Free State and Natal, it will eliminate these delays. There is also a line between Springs and Nigel which runs to Durban and Natal, and I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the goods from the towns to the east of Germiston cannot possibly be collected at Springs so that the trains can be marshalled there and in this way the transport from the Eastern Transvaal and the East Rand to the various destinations can be accelerated. If this is possible we will be very grateful if the hon. the Minister will assist us to accelerate this traffic from the East Rand and the Eastern Transvaal.

There is nothing to prevent other goods besides coal being transported over that line. There is no embargo upon the transport of other goods besides coal. The line was built chiefly to deviate the southbound coal traffic so that it did not have to pass through the Rand complex. However, if it is possible and promotive of the work of the Railways, then other groups can also use that line. This is a matter which can be considered. If there are sufficient goods and it suits the activities of the Railways, then it can be done.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 2.—“New Works on Open Lines”, R52,826,770,

I would like to refer to item 139 on page 14: “Danskraal: Removal north end of yard and widen bridge.” May I ask the hon. the Minister what this means? I understood that a start had been made on the portion near Belspruit with the building of four new lines and that these had already been completed; that there ought actually to be eight lines but that the other four have not yet been built. I ask whether these are going to be the next four lines and whether this is the bridge which has to be built across that river. I want to pass now to item 691 on page 57: “Danskraal: Additional loop and compressor house, flash-butt welding depot”, and immediately after it, item 693: “Danskraal: Plant and machinery for flash-butt welding depot.” I would like to know from the hon. the Minister how far this matter has progressed because mention is made here of a depot and as far as I know, no building has as yet been erected. Is this depot merely an open place where the work is done?

A depot does not necessarily mean a building.

If the hon. the Minister tells me that a depot does not necessarily mean a building, then I want to express my disappointment that after so many years of representations of the railway people of Danskraal, and particularly, of the welding workers, that a building should be erected, the hon. the Minister now tells me that a depot does not mean a building. I would like then to have more details from him in order to know what the improvements are which will eventually be effected here.

I come now to page 58, item 717: “Ladysmith: Enlarge non-White waiting room on main platform”, item 718: “Ladysmith: Improve electric lighting in yard” and item 719: “adysmith: Replace automatic telephone exchange”. In connection with all three of these I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is only going to be patchwork in regard to the station at Ladysmith, and whether the hon. the Minister does not think that we have reached the stage where the whole of Ladysmith station should be remodelled and improved. I think that where so many individual items appear here, it will perhaps pay the hon. the Minister better to consider the remodelling of the whole station.

I refer to heading No. 1064 “New Wagonrepair workshop at Welgedag” which is in the municipal area of Springs. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could give us some indication as to whether this work is going to be proceeded with at a cost of R3,000,000. In anticipation of the Minister’s reply that this matter has been referred to a committee, I would like to appeal to him that if this report should be adverse, he should nevertheless give consideration to the immediate construction of this wagon repair workshop in our area, in order to assist us with the problems which we have got, and of which he is well aware. The construction of a R3,000,000 workshop together with machinery and equipment for that repair shop amounting to approximately Rl,750,000, would give a tremendous impetus to the whole development which we so urgently need in that area. I think. Sir, this is one of those cases where the Minister of Railways could assist the Minister of Economic Affairs in order to give employment and development to the East Rand and Springs in particular. With the development which is taking place in the Eastern Transvaal—I refer to the new goldfields in those parts—I think that this wagon repair shop and the engineering artisans that will be attracted to that area, will be of tremendous advantage to railway development as a whole. We are particularly concerned about this in view of the article which appeared in the Star on 2 January of this year in which it says that—

Now, Sir, if this statement is correct it may be anticipating the report of the committee which has been appointed.

The marshalling yard has got nothing to do with this repair workshop.

I will be getting on to that as well, Sir. I am asking if the hon. the Minister could also assist in carrying out the development of the marshalling yard at Welgedag and extending that still further, and not give recognition to the concentration of all the marshalling yards at Germiston. These two projects taken together—namely the development and the extension of the marshalling yards and the immediate construction of a wagon repair shop in this area—is something which the people of the East Rand, particularly of the Springs area, are looking forward to very much indeed. I repeat that, in anticipation of the Minister’s reply that this matter is under investigation, I feel that this is one of the matters where we should take a bold step and carry on with the immediate construction of the wagon repair shop as contemplated in this Brown Book. I look forward to a favourable reply from the Minister on this matter.

When the Minister replies, I would like thim to comment briefly on Items 50, 51, 52, 56 and 57. All these items deal with the quadrupling of the line from Durban to Booth and the Alice Street complex. The comment that I am seeking is whether or not this whole complex will fit into the plans which the Minister has in mind for the extension of further facilities to the south of Durban, that is, the lines which are under consideration as far as the Umlazi township set-up is concerned. All I ask the Minister is to indicate whether in planning this whole set-up the possibility of having Native suburban trains running from Duff’s Road right to Umlazi and back, was ever contemplated?

In reply to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) I can give him the assurance that any lines which will be built to Umlazi will fit in with the general scheme. The quadrupling of the line as far as Duff’s Road, of course, will be sufficient to meet any additional capacity that might be offering. The Umlazi line will fit in with the whole complex of railway lines for the Bantu townships and with the suburban lines in that particular area.

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) raised the matter of the workshops at Welgedag. This is a matter in regard to which I have been receiving representations from the hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) for quite a long time. I have given him the assurance that if it is found necessary that railway workshops be built, at Welgedag, it will be done, but that a committee has been appointed to inquire into the capacity of the railway shops throughout the whole of the Republic. It is possible that there may be surplus capacity and in that case it will be foolish to build additional workshops when existing workshops can cope with all the work. Planning is taking place for the building of that workshop but a final decision will not be taken until such time as I have received the report of this committee. It is a question of rationalization. As I explained earlier this afternoon, it might mean that certain smaller workshops at certain centres will have to be closed down and their activities concentrated in the larger workshops where there is a surplus of capacity. But once I have a birdseye view of the whole position then the decision will be taken as to whether the building of this workshop should be proceeded with or not. Marshalling yards, of course, are built where they are required. You do not build a marshalling yard merely to assist any one or other place. It is a question of what is the requirements of operating. If operating requires a marshalling yard at a certain place, then the yard must be built there. Apparently operating requires a marshalling yard to be built at Germiston and that is why that is being done.

*The hon. member for Drakensberg spoke about certain items in connection with Ladysmith and asked whether this was not merely patchwork which was being done. There is only one thing being done on the station at Ladysmith and that is that the non-European waiting room on the station is being enlarged. The other two items deal in the one case with the lighting of the yard and in the other case with the replacing of the automatic telephone exchange. As I said this afternoon, there are numbers of stations which need new buildings and new stations. I cannot at this moment say where Ladysmith is on the list. However, I know that I have received urgent representations from the other side for the new Durban station. I shall have now to choose which is the most important, Ladysmith or Durban. Perhaps the hon. member can help me?

As far as item 693 is concerned, this is merely to make provision for additional machinery for the replacing of obsolete machinery and also for the improvement of the working conditions there. As far as the details of these improvements are concerned, I do not have the details at the moment. I shall have to obtain this information and send it to the hon. member. I cannot say whether this perhaps means that a roof will be built at the welding depot, but I will obtain this information for the hon. member. I know a great deal about the Railways but there are a few thousand items and I do not have the details of each one of them in my head.

As regards item 139, this work is in the interests of safety. It deals with the widening of the bridge over Belspruit. I have a note here to the effect that the widening of the line over the Belspruit bridge is necessary and that this is in the interests of safety.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would give us some details in regard to item 137, “Alterations to yard at Amanzimtoti”. I would like to know precisely what is contemplated with this alteration to the yard there. We are in difficulty lower down the coast, particularly at Umkomaas because we have not got adequate marshalling room there, and I do not know whether Amanzimtoti is now going to be used as a marshalling yard for the traffic which is building up lower down the coast or just what precisely is the position? Amanzimtoti, of course, is situated in a strategic position because it is over the hill from the factory Umbogintwini, where there is a very heavy pull up, over the hill to the factory and then down the other side to Amanzimtoti. What does the Minister envisage for this marshalling yard at the moment? What is the plan behind the development of this particular yard?

This particular item is merely to provide for the lengthening of loops and for mechanical signalling improvement. That is to facilitate crossings. In regard to the future of the yard that depends on the future trends in traffic and operating requirements. That is a matter, of course, that will have to be investigated before I can reply to the hon. member.

I refer to item 437, provision to provide subways. Mr. Chairman, I have had a discussion with the Minister in regard to the closing of the Station Road Observatory crossing and I have discussed it with people interested and they expressed concern that it was the Minister’s intention to close this crossing. I would like to prevail upon the Minister again to give consideration to keeping this crossing open on the terms as arranged between the municipality and the Railways. It is a most important crossing and I do not know how that any agreement was made to close this crossing. I have done a complete survey of the area and I have found that it will be impossible for the people at the lower end of Observatory to come by car or to get to the top end or vice versa. It is going to affect a very large sportground, the Hartleyvale Football ground; there is a very large mental hospital adjacent; the Minister’s own recreational club is close-by, Liesbeek Park. It will be completely cut off. The statement made by the local System Manager that the new throughway could be used …

On the conclusion of the period of seven hours allotted for the proceedings in Committee of Supply, the business under consideration was interrupted by the Chairman in accordance with Standing Order No. 105.

Head No. 2,—“New Works on Open Lines”, R52,826,770, put and agreed to.

Remaining Heads put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Funds reported without amendment, and the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works reported without amendment.

Estimates of Expenditure adopted.

The Minister of Transport brought up a Bill to give effect to the Estimates of Expenditure adopted by the House.

I move—

That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 166, the Bill be not committed and that the third reading be taken now.

I second.

Agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

With regard to Clause 28, we come to a clause which in a sense is just as vital as the take-over clause we have already dealt with. It is a clause which empowers the various authorities to make regulations. I say the various authorities because it does not only empower the Minister to make regulations but also the Administrator. It is of interest for a moment just to have a look at Section 43 bis (1) (g), (h) and (i) because (g) permits the Minister to make regulation prescribing the powers, functions and duties for any management committee—I want to come back to the management committee in a moment—and (h) authorizes the Administrator of a Province to confer or impose upon any management committee established in his province such powers, functions and duties of the local authority which has jurisdiction in the area for which such committee has been established as he may in his discretion determine; and (i) in consultation with the Administrator of the Province concerned the Minister may make regulations as to the powers, functions and duties of any local authority in any portion of his area of jurisdiction in respect of which a management committee has been established and in connection with any matter in respect of which powers, functions or duties have been conferred or imposed upon the management committee by or under regulation. These are very sweeping powers, for the Minister to make regulations on his own, to delegate powers to the Administrator to make regulations, and to make regulations in respect of which the municipal authorities may themselves make regulations. Now, what of the management committee which is the subject of this special attention by the Minister? The management committee is a body created by me Minister, or which the Minister has the power to create, in respect of an area within a local authority area where he deems it expedient to do so. He cannot create a management committee area outside the area of the local authority. I am not sure how far the Minister’s powers are limited in that respect, because the Minister, as we have seen in another clause, takes powers not only to alter or amend but to repeal laws which stand in his way in regard to, not local authorities, but authorities constituted under this Bill, management committees, etc. Where any other law stands in his way he is at liberty to amend or to alter or to repeal it and then he can make regulations dealing with the whole subject. In other words, this question of the establishment of local authorities—because I want to call the management committee a local authority now, although it is not an orthodox local authority; it is the first step after the consultative committee where the local authority being established by the Minister acquires actual administrative powers, some of which it acquires by proclamation in terms of regulations made by the Minister, and some it acquires from the local authority, from whose body it has been carved out, and some it acquires by virtue of the Administrator. From that point onwards it goes forward and the next step is for the Administrator, when called upon by the Minister, to create that management committee into what has been called an orthodox local authority. I want to say at once that in my opinion this cannot work. It brings me to this point, that according to the Press the Minister has recently, within the last few days, had representations made to him by certain local authorities and municipal institutions, and according to the Press, agreement was arrived at between that delegation and the Minister in regard to many of these matters affecting local authorities. I can hardly conceive of anything which is likely to affect local authorities more than this particular provision. For the moment I am leaving aside entirely the question of the management committee in its relation to either the Coloureds or the Indians for which it is being established. I want to deal with the local authority aspect at the moment. I want to ask the Minister whether the agreement reached between himself and the representatives of the local authorities within the last few days is calling for any change in the pattern or in the administrative details set out in this Bill. Does the Minister intend in the Other Place making alterations, or does he intend dealing with the matter here? Because it seems to me quite clear that this clause is one of the clauses where the local authorities are going to be most deeply concerned. Let us, e.g., deal with the matter of financial regulations. In regard to the regulations which may be made by the Minister, the first regulations deal with franchise rights, nomination and election or the appointment of certain members of the management committees. But then other provisions are made by regulation for a different kind of provision, e.g the question of the powers, functions and duties of the local authority which has jurisdiction in the area. Now those powers, functions and duties include financial powers and functions. I am interested to know whether that is the kind of thing which was the subject of discussion and how far the Minister has gone in reviewing the position set out in the Bill and whether he will take us into his confidence in regard thereto.

I would like to suggest to the Minister that as far as Clause 28 is concerned the subject of that clause is far too wide to be dealt with merely by way of regulation. In terms of Clause 28, every detail concerning the establishment, the running, the voting qualifications and powers of, and the working of a local authority, is set out in regulations to be framed by the Minister.

Of the local authority?

Yes, because the management committee in effect will be the local authority.

That is wrong.

Let us look at it from the practical point of view. The object of these regulations is to notify the general public of these various powers and duties, etc. I do not know whether the Minister has ever tried to find a set of regulations amongst the Government Gazettes governing any particular situation and whether he has ever tried to find a set of regulations together with half-a-dozen or more amendments to that set of regulations in a bundle of Government Gazettes. Where this sort of thing is done by way of ordinance or statute, as it should be, it is difficult enough to find one’s way through it. It is difficult enough for a lawyer to deal with this sort of thing, but if all these powers are going to be set out in regulations it is virtually impossible for the ordinary layman to find his way about these regulations. In proper legislation one normally sets out in terms of regulations fairly minor changes, or things which are dealt with by way of regulations, because they change considerably from time to time in detail. But it is quite wrong to set out in the form of regulations, as it is proposed to do here, virtually every aspect of the formation, the running, control and the qualifications of those who are going to exercise those powers in relation to consultative and management committees. That is my first objection to this clause. But then it seems to me that there is a second objection, namely this. If one looks at the proposed Section 43bis (1) (h) on page 13, I think there is a conflict between that sub-section and the proposed Section 25 (4), which is Clause 22, and which appears at the top of page 9. Section 25 (4) says that the management committee shall have such of the powers of the local authority as are conferred on it by regulation. As far as Section 43bis (1) (h) is concerned, that authorizes regulations to be made for the Administrator to impose powers of the local authority on the management committee. Now you cannot have both. You can have one or the other. You cannot have regulations imposing powers, and at the same time the Administrator imposing powers by regulation in respect of the same things and in respect of the same bodies. That is the effect of these two sub-sections standing side by side in the Bill. I suggest to the Minister again that either he has to keep in Section 25 (4) or he has to keep in Section 43bis (1) (h), but there is a conflict between the two, and it will enable conflicting regulations to be made in respect of the same subject matter, namely the consultative or management committees. It seems to me that is bad legislation and one or other of those two clauses should be abandoned.

The last two speakers object to Clause 28 because they maintain that the regulations are far too wide, but no regulation can be upheld in any court if it goes beyond the provisions of this particular legislation; even though it is framed widely, such a regulation cannot be upheld beyond the limits of the law under which it has been issued. Therefore, that argument does not hold good at all.

The last speaker came to light with the argument of a layman, that a layman would not be able to trace these regulations. This is a very naive argument because we know that no layman can find his way around in regard to any legislation at all. Even with the ordinary legislation which we adopt here year after year, a layman knows very little in this regard and to come along now with the argument that the regulations are so impossible to find cannot affect the merits of the regulations as such.

Even many Members of Parliament cannot do that.

Yes, that is so. The hon. member said that the regulations to which he objected particularly are those which are issued under (g), (h) and (i). It must surely be realized that we have to deal here with two institutions. The one is the consultative committee which does not exist under our existing ordinances. No ordinance makes provision for a consultative committee and it has to be arranged separately here because it is a new creation. So too is the management committee a new creation. In respect of those two bodies new arrangements must now be made by the hon. the Minister and the Administrator also has received the authority because regulations are being made here separately for them. We come now to the local authority. A local authority is set up under the ordinances of the province and their regulations are issued by the Administrator. This sub-section does not give an extra power to the Minister of the Administrator to grant powers outside of those ordinances to a local authority, except that where such a management committee becomes a local authority, to arrange that where it takes over from a local authority, and even becomes a local authority, and it takes over certain powers of an existing local authority, then to arrange between those two local authorities which come into being in this way, regulations can be made, and the limits thereof are demarcated. Therefore, what the hon. member for Zululand said here is really no argument, that powers are being granted here to local authorities under regulations which are far wider because no powers are being granted to local authorities under regulation nor to the hon. the Minister to give them rights, because he only receives rights in respect of the case where a management committee becomes a local authority.

The hon. member also contended that there is conflict between this clause and 25 (4). If there is conflict or contradiction between the two clauses, as he contends, the hon. member ought to know that a court will uphold the substantive clause, that is to say, it will uphold 25 (4) as against the regulations which are made if there is any contradiction. But my submission is indeed that there is no conflict at all because if you read the two clauses you can see that there is no conflict. Sub-section (4) provides that a management committee possesses powers within the area for which it has been set up and is entrusted with the functions and duties of a local authority which has jurisdiction in respect of such area which is granted or transferred to it by or in terms of regulation. Every local authority has certain rights and duties. Where this management committee is being instituted the existing rights and duties of that local authority can be transferred to that management committee. This is the provision of the new Section 25 (4). Now we have the regulations in the same connection. It says that the Minister is empowered t© promulgate regulations which empower the Administrator to grant the powers, functions and duties of the local authority which has jurisdiction in that area to a management committee within his province. They have absolutely the same provisions. He receives the same rights here as he does under 25 (4) in order to transfer those powers by way of regulation. There is no conflict at all between the two.

I want to say immediately that I regard this Clause 28 as the most obnoxious clause in the entire Bill. The clause would appear to vest in the Minister the highest dictatorial powers imaginable. I want to say this immediately, that in my criticism of this clause I do not intend to make any personal reflection on the present incumbent of the post. My observations and criticism would apply to whoever is the Minister. I say that this clause is objectionable for the reasons I want to give to the Committee.

I say it is quite wrong for Parliament to vest in any Minister the dictatorial powers envisaged in this clause, and I want the Committee to bear with me while I examine these powers. In the first place the Minister takes unto himself the power to make regulations in sub-section (a) of his proposed amendment, as to the manner in which the consultative or management committees are to be constituted, including the election of all or some of its members. In other words, the Minister seeks power to differentiate between the members of his consultative and management committees. I want the Minister to tell the Committee why he seeks to differentiate between the election of all or some of its members, and what procedure does he intend following in carrying out that differentiation between all the members and some of the members. There must obviously be some reason why the Minister intends this, and I think this Committee and the country are entitled to know why the Minister seeks this power. It may of course be that the Minister tries to take power unto himself to nominate a large section of the members of these committees. If that is so, the sooner we know that the better, because I want to suggest to the Minister again in all seriousness that if he is going to nominate members to the committee he is breaking down this structure and making it even more ridiculous than it appears to be on the face of it. Then these consultative and management committees will not have the confidence of the Coloured people. I think this Committee is entitled to know why the Minister seeks these powers to differentiate between all and some of the members.

Would they otherwise have the confidence of the Coloured people?

No, I want to say immediately what I have said so often in this debate, that this has not the confidence of the vast majority of the Coloured people, but you are aggravating the situation if the Minister takes power to nominate members of the committees.

Now, obviously one cannot in ten minutes voice all one’s criticism of this clause, but I want to go on immediately to what I regard as the most important aspect of the clause, and that is sub-section (c), where the Minister takes unto himself the right by regulation to prescribe the qualifications required to vote for or to become a member of any such committee. Here again, it is quite obvious that the Minister takes the power to differentiate. He can impose certain qualifications for those who are entitled to vote for these committees, and other qualifications for those who are entitled to become members of these committees. I want the Minister to tell us why he seeks these powers to differentiate. But I want to say that whatever the Minister’s reasons are, I regard this proposal as a most monstrous one. I ask the Minister why should the qualifications of these Coloured people who in future will be taken off the common municipal roll and be allotted to a roll of their own—why should the qualifications for their voting for or becoming members of these committees be determined by the Minister? What does this amount to? It amounts to this, that in the place of the present municipal franchise where the qualifications are laid down by law —Parliament has laid it down and the Provincial Councils have laid it down—the Minister in terms of sub-section (c) breaks down that entire structure of law as we know it and takes everything into his own hands; everything is left to his discretion. In other words, the Minister can at his whim determine the qualifications of the people who will be entitled to vote for these committees, and again at his whim he can determine the qualifications of the people who can hold office on these committees. I want to ask the Minister this: What justification can there be for him to determine the qualifications? The Minister is now seeking to impose on this country this completely new structure in regard to the municipal franchise. Surely Parliament should determine the qualifications. Surely we, in the course of our deliberations here this evening, should have the right to determine the qualifications of these people, and not leave it to any Minister. I want to ask the Minister a pertinent question. What does he think the reaction would be of the ratepayers of George if he were to come a long and say to them: We are removing you from the municipal roll and I, the Minister, am taking powers to myself to determine what your qualifications will be in regard to voting and serving on the local authority? What will the reaction of the White voters be? I shudder to think what their reaction will be. I say to the Minister that if he cannot advance a valid answer as to what the reaction of those White voters will be, he has no right to take these powers unto himself in regard to the Coloureds. I say this is a monstrous proposal whereby he takes unto himself at his sole discretion the right to impose these qualifications.

Now I want to deal with another aspect of the matter. In sub-section (d) the Minister takes unto himself this right, that he will provide by regulation which persons shall be qualified as voters for management committees, and he goes on to say that on the date on which he by his own regulations and by imposing his own qualifications determines who can be qualified to vote for these committees, once they become qualified to vote for these committees they ipso facto cannot become qualified to vote in the election of members of the local authority. In other words, the Minister brings about this absurd situation. The Minister by regulation will qualify the Coloured people for management committees against their will, because there is no evidence at all up to now that the Coloured people want this. So against their will he will determine by regulation hat their qualifications will be to vote for the management committees. And as long as they remain qualified, in other words, whether they exercise their vote in voting for these management committees or not, does not matter, but as long as they remain qualified to vote for these committees they cannot become registered as municipal voters despite the fact that they may have properties in the local authorities and despite the fact that they may be ratepayers in that area, and despite the fact that they have the municipal franchise rights which they have enjoyed for over a hundred years. Sir, but for the tragedy of the situation, I cannot imagine a more Gilbertian situation. The Minister will by regulation, without consulting them, impose qualifications which will entitle them, if they want to, to vote for a committee, and whether they exercise their vote or not, once he has determined their qualifications they are no longer qualified to be on the common municipal voters’ roll.

Before I reply to a few points, I would like to rectify one matter in regard to one of the hon. members of the Opposition and in connection with which I feel that there is a duty resting upon me. Earlier in the course of the debate, I followed up the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) as speaker and I was dealing in my speech with and referring to persons who adopt certain attitudes towards the policy of the Government in public and then adopt a different attitude in their private capacities. I used the words: “The hon. member for Pinelands must listen”. After this the hon. member came to see me at my office and informed me that although he did not regard it in that light when I referred to him, some of his friends did think that it could be interpreted that he was one of the persons to whom I was referring. I immediately gave him the assurance that this was not the case but I also volunteered to rectify the matter here in the House and I want to do so now. I want to say that at that stage I did not know where the hon. member lived, that I still do not know where he lives and therefore I could not have had him in mind and that a deduction of this nature by his friends is completely incorrect.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) asked me what my discussions were with the deputation of the Municipal Association who came to see me. I do not know whether under this clause I shall be permitted to give a review of the discussions, but I shall try to confine myself to the subject matter. I undertook to effect certain amendments in the Other Place.

We do not wish to discuss matters which the hon. the Minister has already decided to change.

The amendments in regard to which we reached agreement are in respect of another clause. As far as this matter is concerned I undertook on the part of the Municipal Association in the first place to submit the regulations which I am now having framed —and as soon as the Act is on the Statute Book, those regulations will be promulgated— to the four provincial administrations. After I have submitted these to them and obtained their comments, I will also submit them to the four executives of the various municipal associations. In other words, it is my intention to frame these regulations in the closest cooperation with them before they are made known. I may just say that it gave them a great measure of satisfaction and I was pleased that I could give them this assurance. I have of course given that assurance previously in this debate but the Press did not help me to bring this to the attention of the municipal associations. The Press apparently have their own reasons why they did not regard this as being important.

I want to tell the hon. member further that he asked on a previous occasion that I should try to explain the steps as I see them. I have already done this under another clause and I am not going to repeat it. I am sorry that the hon. member was not here but I understand why he was not here. I would just like to say, however, that in regard to this whole question, including the question of the promulgation of regulations, we must bear in mind that we do not have to deal with the same circumstances throughout the whole country but that the circumstances differ from province to province to start with. In the second place, circumstances can differ from town to town. Therefore, we must try to deal with this matter against the background of the circumstances prevailing in the whole of the country. We cannot stare blindly at circumstances which may exist in the Cape Peninsula. We must take account of the fact that these consultative and management committees may quite possibly have to be brought into being under different circumstances from place to place. Therefore, you must have regulatory powers which you can use to cover those particular requirements of a certain place. I have already said I will do this in consultation with the various provincial administrations, and in the second place, in consultation with the municipal associations.

I want to take them with me because I am aware of the fact that without their assistance I cannot make much progress. Therefore, your regulatory powers have to be reasonably wide so that you have some play in dealing with the various circumstances. This clause, however, cannot be read on its own; it must be read in the light of Clause 22. Clause 22 is the binding clause. We will not even be able to go further with regulations. Moreover, there are no ordinances and there is no legislation which makes provision for the establishment of consultative and management committees. In some provinces, there is not even an ordinance or any legislation which makes provision for the establishment of a form of local authority. We have to do something now to rectify all these shortcomings. As a result of this power, we may at least reach the stage in a province like the Cape where we can create preparatory stages which will lead to municipal authority under an existing ordinance. It is not my purpose to take powers which, when I have brought the Coloured community to that stage where they will have reached municipal status, will permit me to continue further with them in this way. Then they must be managed under the existing ordinance. As far as the other provinces are concerned, the position is that we now know that we can at least bring these communities to the level of management committees. If further action has to be taken —and I also said this to the municipal association—after the management committee stage, then it is up to the province concerned to adapt its ordinance and to make it possible thereunder for these people to be able to progress to a fully-fledged municipal authority. I have said this previously, but I want to make it clear again here because the hon. member for Peninsula became very heated. He used the words “monstrous” and “dictatorial” and all that sort of thing. That makes no impression. It is not important. The hon. member does it regularly when he makes his periodic visits to this House. They are fine words which one can read in the Press to-morrow but they do not solve the problem. The fact is that we have to do something to train these people. The fact is that there are places where you cannot progress with them any further, at this stage, than a consultative committee. The hon. member now says that I am taking the power to appoint them. But is this such a new principle? Under the 1909 Act, previous Ministers had that power.

Only in the communal reserves.

Yes, but under the existing provincial ordinances … [Interjections.] The hon. member does not want to listen. He is not interested in it. Under the 1909 Act the Minister has those powers to appoint those committees or to appoint them partially. This worked well. It worked so well that eventually we were able to go a step further at most of those places, namely, to eliminate the further step for which the legislation made provision so that these people became elected members. You have to make a period of preparation and training available. Let me draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that even under the provincial ordinances in the Cape there are various examples which I can give of certain local authorities which are still appointed by the Administrator to-day: the members are not elected at all. When you appoint persons, there is a procedure which you have to follow. You may consult; you help those people to establish ratepayers’ associations, for example, or to establish an interested association and you seek out the leaders before you appoint these people. Otherwise, you go to the mother municipality. You go, for example, to Bellville, and you say: “I want to start a consultative committee in Bellville South. You as the mother body will be able to advise me in regard to whom I must appoint; you know the people; you know who the leaders are.” Then you negotiate with those people and you reach agreement with them whereby they will serve on such committee. In this way you enable these people to become acquainted with municipal authority. It is only when you are sure that they as a community can progress a step further that you take the step of establishing the management committee. However, it still always happens at the stage before the ordinance comes into operation, but the present ordinances do not make provision for these two stages. I want to continue to emphasize this because I am under the impression that hon. members consider that I am engaged here in intruding upon the provincial preserves, while this is not the position at all. Indeed, the provinces welcome this step; they co-operated with me.

Natal too?

Of course Natal had representation thereon.

No.

Natal had representation on it, and I read out their reply here that they do not feel called upon to express an opinion for or against the legislation. The other provinces welcomed it.

That is not cooperation.

They had representation on the committee. [Interjections.] The Executive Committee of Natal had a representative on the committee which framed these two clauses.

The Executive Committee said that they were not prepared to express an opinion in that regard.

They did not wish to express an opinion: in other words, they did not reject it either. The hon. member must not try to go off at a tangent; I am trying to discuss this matter with the hon. member on its merits.

They never saw this Bill.

Of course they saw these two particular clauses. These two clauses are part of the committee’s report and this was referred to them.

They did not see this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, must not the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) accept my word? The hon. member is suggesting that I am telling a lie. The fact is that committee reported, and these two clauses form part of that report. These two clauses were framed by the committee on which the administrations had the majority.

Did they see the Bill?

The provincial administrations were consulted as far as the rest of the Bill is concerned in respect of the matters affecting them. I am merely trying to emphasize this point for the hon. member that this is a pre-ordinance stage, but in respect of the other three provinces it is a stage to which they have not given any consideration. If they want to go further and if they wish to determine a franchise and if they wish to grant the franchise under the ordinances, they are at liberty to make their ordinances in this way. I do not have the slightest doubt that the hon. member will agree with me that those provinces will have to do something in this connection. Where the despotism and the dictatorship and the monstrosity comes in, only hon. members on the other side will know. That sort of thing, however, passes us by. It no longer helps to use those words here. I want to tell the hon. member that he can forget about them. They will not cause us to shirk our duty.

Another hon. member said that it was so difficult to follow all the regulations. However, in the Cape ordinances provision is made in one section only for 130 matters in regard to which regulations can be promulgated and the Cape ordinances have always worked well. However, when I ask in one clause for regulatory powers to give effect to the provisions of Clause 22, this is a terrible thing! Then there is another objection that there may be clashes. However, Mr. Chairman, Clause 22 (4) states emphatically that the Minister can only empower the Administrator by way of regulation to do certain things; in regard to how those things must take place, the conditions connected therewith and the circumstances under which this must be done, these are matters which the Administrator himself must decide. This is a further proof exactly that I want this done by the administration concerned. The whole argument of the hon. member therefore falls away. The hon. member must compare these two sub-sections properly, and then he will see that there is no conflict.

Mr. Chairman, I can say nothing more about this matter. I am bound by Clause 22 as far as Clause 28 is concerned. Those regulatory powers are only there to give effect to the principles which are laid down in Clause 22.

I have very strong objections to this clause which I believe is the corner-stone of the whole Bill. As far as I am concerned—I mentioned earlier of course. that the principle of the Bill was something to which I objected very strongly—I want to reiterate my objections to this principle as it affects Clause 28, the one which is under consideration at the moment. My first objection to this clause is contained in sub-section (1), sub-sections (a) to (d), which lays down the powers which the hon. the Minister has taken to make various regulations about the composition of the consultative and management committees which he intends to set up, including the decision as to whether these committees are to have any elected members, the tenure of office of such members, the holding of meetings of such committees, the franchise qualifications in relation to these committee members and their election. It seems to me that all these sub-sections completely undermine the existing elective system. At the present stage it is not within the Minister’s authority to lay down regulations in respect of the franchise for municipal voters in the Cape Province. But under this clause he is now taking unto himself powers to decide what the franchise qualifications should be and of course, they may vary from area to area.

That is not so.

It is so. Different regulations may be made in respect of different areas under sub-section (2). [Interjections.] The consultative and management committees have people who were voted on to them, partly at least, one hopes. One hopes that the hon. the Minister will leave some vestige of the elective principle and, of course, different regulations may be made with regard to different areas. So there is no consistency even about the type of qualification that the hon. the Minister is going to lay down either for the franchise qualifications of voters for those consultative committees or management committees or incidentally for the persons who might stand for election for those consultative or management committees. That is my first objection. With a stroke of the pen, Sir, the hon. the Minister can remove completely the last vestige of Common Roll system that exists in South Africa at the present moment. He is doing this in relation to the Coloured voters in the municipal areas in the Cape Province who had enjoyed that privilege for decades.

It seems to me—and I am sure the hon. the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that in terms of this Clause 28 under sub-section (d) the minute a local authority has actually been established in terms of this clause, existing voters within the orbit of the previous local authority will at once lose their franchise rights. Naturally, because they now no longer belong to the main local authority; they have been excised from the local authority and therefore they must exercise their vote in the new local authority. One cannot live in one local authority and exercise the municipal franchise in another local authority. So the minute the Minister takes the penultimate step of creating an actual local authority, those people who formerly for instance, enjoyed the franchise in the City of Cape Town, will now only enjoy the franchise in, shall we say, the local authority of Athlone. That is one affect of this clause. That is as far as the creation of local authorities is concerned. But where the hon. the Minister sets up a management committee it means that no new voters can be registered for the existing local authority in which that management committee area falls. In other words, existing voters will stay on the local authority’s municipal roll, but the minute a management committee is set up and the minute people qualify to be voters on that new management committee, they are not allowed to be registered as new voters within the local authority. So that as far as I can see this clause is a pegging clause as far as the Coloured voters in the Cape Province are concerned. Local authorities, where new, will disfranchise people. Where management committees or consultative committees are set up, all new voters will lose the right which they formerly had to be registered in the municipal area in which the management or consultative committee falls. I call that, Sir, a pegging clause as far as the Coloured voters in the Cape Province are concerned.

When we discussed this previously we were given two reasons. The first reason given to us was what I call the “wool over the eye” reason, that is that the poor Coloured voters under the existing circumstances do not really enjoy the rights which they are supposed to enjoy. The municipal franchise means nothing to them because so few Coloured voters are on the voters’ roll for the different municipal areas in the Cape Province. Figures were quoted to show that Coloured voters numbered so many thousands in the different areas but were never enough to exercise sufficient influence. Therefore their vote was valueless to them and what they were getting instead was something of much greater value because within their own local area, within their own group areas, they would be able to exercise the full function of franchise and control.

I mentioned earlier that the answer to that one was to increase the number of Coloured voters, if that was really the concern which initiated the insertion of Clause 28 into this Bill. There are economic qualifications for the vote and the way to increase the number who can vote is simply, of course, to improve their economic conditions so as to make it possible for more Cape Coloured voters to register. Or alternatively, to repeal the section which is actually the inhibiting factor, namely Section 89 of the Municipal Ordinance, which limits the number of Coloured voters and which has been employed as a device by the various municipalities to keep down the number of Coloured voters by seeing that the franchise is only exercised by people who are not weekly tenants. Of course, in most of the municipalities the tenants of municipal houses are weekly tenants to-day in order, as I have said, that this device may be used. So it is easy enough to remove Section 89 from the ordinance. [Interjections.] That is mentioned in the Rossouw Commission report as the specific reason, for municipalities employing this Section 89 of the Municipal Ordinance deliberately to limit the number of Coloured voters. It has been used by the Cape Town City Council and by other municipal councils. I get my information from the Rossouw Commission report and from other people with whom I have discussed it and I believe that this is correct. Section 89 has been used as a device to limit the number of Coloured voters. It can easily be remedied. It can be remedied by removing Section 89 and municipalities will then not be able to limit voters on city council rolls to persons who are not weekly tenants. So there is a very easy remedy.

The second reason which I call the cat-out of-the-bag reason, which is the honest reason why this is being introduced, is the fear that the number of Coloured voters, despite all these difficulties, is increasing rapidly in most of the urban areas of the Cape Province particularly in the little towns round and about the Cape Peninsula. That is the main reason. The Coloured voters are in fact increasing too rapidly for the likes of people who are frightened by this old swamping argument— that the Coloured voters will sooner or later swamp the White voters. It is a decided fear amongst certain people that the Coloured voters will in the Peninsula urban complex sooner or later out-number the White voters and perhaps not in the very distant future. As it is, Sir, in the light of this fear Clause 28 of this Bill has been introduced and not because the number of Coloured voters on the municipal rolls are so few that the Coloureds do not in fact enjoy any real benefits from their franchise.

Paragraph 36 of the Rossouw Commission report makes it very clear indeed that if the Government had really been concerned simply with handing over local government functions or certain of those local government functions, to the Coloured community, then there is nothing at all preventing the hon. the Minister from doing so under Section 25 of the Group Areas Act. He could quite simply have handed over …

Order! The hon. member is now attacking the principle.

Sir, with due respect, I am attacking Clause 28. Because if you would look at paragraph (h) of Clause 28 you will see that the hon. the Minister makes regulations whereby—

The point I am trying to make, Sir, is that the hon. the Minister could have done that anyway—that is the only purpose of this section—under Section 25 of the Group Areas Act. So that it is not only this, Sir, that has motivated the hon. the Minister to insert this clause in the Bill … [Time limit.]

The two previous speakers on the Opposition side, the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg), have shown the obsession with racism which controls their thoughts. We have here a clause which deals with the method in regard to how to bring a local authority into being in a new community which is susceptible to that form of local authority Without giving any consideration to the extent to which this pattern complies with the normal pattern of South Africa and with the international pattern in regard to the manner in which local authorities are brought into being, clause after clause is investigated in order to see whether some racist story cannot be found. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Houghton did this very politely, but the hon. member for Peninsula merely stood up in order to call these powers “dictatorial” powers, a word which he knows stinks in the nostrils of the world. But he seeks the opportunity with his particularly evil intentions in respect of the country and the government to use that word.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member entitled to suggest that the hon. member for Peninsula has motives other than honourable motives? The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) suggests that the hon. member for Peninsula made his speech in order to affect South Africa detrimentally. I ask you to request him to withdraw that remark.

Order! The hon. member for Kempton Park may proceed.

The further expression was used that it was a “monstrous” measure and that an “absurd situation” was being created. I want to state, Mr. Chairman, that the provisions of this Clause 28 fix the normal pattern which is followed, in the large provinces of South Africa in any case, in connection with the establishment of local authorities. I shall give the details. If there is anything Gilbertian in regard to this situation it is that hon. member who ought to know local authority patterns is so ignorant regarding the methods in terms of which local authorities in our country are brought into being that he has exhibited his ignorance with great self-confidence in order to have the opportunity to spread a little poison. What are these provisions other than the provisions which exist in the peri-urban ordinance of the Transvaal in terms of which the establishment of new local authorities is made possible for the Europeans of the Transvaal? In the first place there is the possibility of a purely advisory committee which will only advise the central peri-urban council in regard to how this little committee should be managed.

I do not think that the hon. member must go into details.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to demonstrate the ignorance of the hon. member for Peninsula, because he made an attack here as though this were an abnormality. In that local authority ordinance there is a difference between the consultative stage and the management stage. There is a variety of regulations regarding the composition of the committee. In the one case you are compelled to have only nominated members. In other cases you can have a mixture of nominated and elected members. In one case you can resort to the mechanics of the recommendations, as the hon. the Minister indicated, of a local vigilance committee, from which you draw the nominated members. In other cases you can have the mechanics of the election of all or some of the members. You have the situation that you have even to draw a distinction between the voting qualifications of various areas because the voting qualifications of the particular province to which I am referring are connected with and generally related to the parliamentary voters’ role and in certain rural areas it is difficult to follow the pattern. There a completely new qualification either of ownership or of residence alone must be followed and sometimes a mixture of the two. My standpoint is simply, Mr. Chairman, that each one of these clauses is an absolutely normal provision. We also have the so-called powers of the hon. the Minister. In the Transvaal, which is the largest province in the country and which has most to do with the establishment of new local authorities, each one of these regulatory powers of the Minister in respect of this matter and in respect of Europeans is given to the Administrator. This is obviously a matter which must be as flexible and supple as possible, so that you must be able to arrange it by way of regulation. It is now being suggested as a monstrous acceptance of power on the part of the hon. the Minister.

The question was asked: What will be the situation if Europeans in the town of George are removed from the municipal voters’ roll? Europeans have often been removed from the municipal voters’ roll, precisely under this Peri-Urban ordinance in the Transvaal, because there is a reshuffling of geographical boundaries which actually happens here and where you live first of all in the same place of residence within the area of the local authority with full municipal franchise, as a result of the removal of boundaries you reach a stage where you are disfranchised municipally and where you as a European experience all those stages of municipal development. This is nothing abnormal; it is nothing dictatorial; it is nothing sinister.

I conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that the sinister aspects of this discussion only lie in the manner in which this matter is viewed. A sound normal provision is being viewed with a sinister eye, a provision which complies with all the internationally accepted concepts of the manner in which local authorities are brought into being.

The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has missed the whole point of the discussion. This is an invasion by the hon. the Minister of rights which in terms of the Constitution are proper to be dealt with by the Provincial Councils. The hon. member for Kempton Park has referred to the Peri Urban Areas Board in the Transvaal. The point he misses, Sir, is that is a creation of the Transvaal Provincial Council in terms of the South Africa Act. It is quite obvious that the hon. member’s criticism was unjustified because he has completely missed the point.

Sir, I wish to come to the provisions of the clause itself. It has been suggested that there has been a great deal of exaggeration. Sir, the hon. the Minister under the provisions of this clause has undertaken, as he has said, that there will be consultation with the Administrator and the Municipal Association. I would interpolate, Sir, that I hope that the hon. the Minister will give an assurance, and perhaps say in this Bill, that he will consult also with the municipality concerned in respect of these matters. Sir, the Municipal Association of the Transvaal, a very worthy body, or the Municipal Association of any other province, is not in a position to deal with the local circumstances. That is a matter where there should be direct contact with the municipality concerned. But objection was taken to what was said by the hon. member for South-Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) as to the tremendously wide powers taken here. Mr. Chairman, under the new 43bis which is inserted by the clause under discussion, the hon. Minister is giving the widest possible powers, although under a previous clause there is a provision in relation to the election of committees. The hon. the Minister here is given powers in 43bis (1) (a) to make regulations “as to the manner in which a consultative committee or management committee is to be constituted, including the election of all or some of its members”. I think the Minister will concede that permits him to appoint all the members of the management committee, in terms of an earlier provision in the Bill. In other words it can be a purely appointed committee, and yet that appointed committee can take over wide powers which are in fact vested by the laws of the land in the municipality which is concerned.

The consultative committee?

No the management committee. I do not say that the consultative committee has those powers, but that committee is merely a consultative committee, and it must be consulted by the municipality concerned. But whether a management committee is created or whether a local authority is created, the powers at present exercised by the local authority can be transferred in the case of a local authority wholly to the newly created local authority, and in the case …

On the conditions prescribed by the Administrator.

The Administrator under this clause is given certain powers, but the overwhelming power in this matter is vested in the hands of the Minister. Section 43bis (1) (a) clearly vests the powers here, the power of regulation, in the Minister, and the Minister does not need to make those regulations, he can act under the earlier clauses of the Bill. But these powers are tremendously wide. The Minister is given power to provide under (d) “that persons who, in terms of regulation made under paragraph (c) are qualified as voters, for any management committee, and who on the date on which they become or became so qualified are or were not already registered as voters for the election of members of a local authority, shall not, while they remain so qualified, be registered as voters for the election of members of a local authority”. I think here the hon. member for Houghton went a little further than the clause permits the Minister to go. So there are other means, as I pointed out to the hon. the Minister when he discussed this matter, under which present registered voters can be removed from the voters’ roll. At the stage that a local authority is created it becomes automatic, but so far as a management committee is concerned, under the provisions of paragraph (d) he can prevent all new registrations of voters, duly qualified, to vote in local authority elections, simply on the ground that there has been established a management committee for the area concerned, and that management committee may have very slender powers indeed. The powers have to be decided in each particular case. Sir, right through this legislation one finds that tremendous powers are vested in the Minister. The Minister suggested that is necessary. But it is perfectly obvious that the proper way of dealing with these matters is not by way of legislation of this sort, which in fact vests in the Minister the powers not only of the local authority concerned, but also of the Administrator. The proper way to deal with these matters is under the present legislation where there is provision for a consultative committee and it would be far more proper if the Minister left these matters to be dealt with, as they are supposed to be dealt with under our Constitution, by the local authority and the provincial council concerned. They have very much closer touch with the local circumstances and that would obviously be the best way of dealing with the matter.

Order! The hon. member is now touching on the principle.

I am sorry, Sir, but I think it has been shown quite conclusively that tremendously wide powers are vested in the Minister in terms of this clause. We have made our protest. We say that this is not the way in which this matter should be dealt with.

The hon. members on the other side try to attack the principle of the making of regulations, but in reality they have found little to attack in this regard for the simple reason that this is an old recognized principle which has always been accepted in our legislation, namely, that the principles are contained in legislation and that the practical implementation of those principles is determined by way of regulation. I can mention a very fine example for hon. members, the example of a law in which most of them had a share, namely, the Water Act. The Water Act makes provision for the establishment of irrigation boards and gives powers to the Ministers to issue regulations in regard to how those members must be elected, and how the irrigation boards must be managed. Precisely the same thing is happening here. I would like to deal in detail with the various aspects dealt with here by hon. members. In the first place, I cannot do otherwise than to refer to the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). He has the ability to get under one’s skin and he also has the ability of saying things which obtain some measure of publicity for him but which really do not do the case any good, the matter for which all of us ought to work. The hon. member made various remarks and, inter alia, used a word which has not yet been used here, namely, when he referred to this “obnoxious” clause.

The hon. member must confine himself strictly to the clause.

I accept your ruling with respect, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member spoke about paragraph (c) and he said that the people will be removed from the municipal role as soon as they receive the franchise under the regulations for which provision is made under paragraph (c). Am I correct in saying that the hon. member said that?

No.

Apparently the hon. member changed his mind in the meanwhile.

My objection in connection with (c) differs from my objection under (d). The point which you are now raising falls under (c).

The hon. member objected to the regulations which can be framed under paragraph (c) which prescribes the qualifications in terms of which the franchise can be obtained. Then he deduced from this that as soon as they obtain those qualifications, they will be removed from the municipal roll.

That comes under (d).

Good. I want to point out to the hon. member that this clause which we are now dealing with deals simply and solely with consultative and management committees.

No.

Of course it deals only with consultative and management committees. The hon. member for Boland has apparently not yet read the clause. Section 43bis which is being inserted by this clause provides that the hon. the Minister can issue regulations concerning the manner in which a consultative committee or a management committee referred to in Section 25 must be constituted. On every occasion thereafter reference is made to “such committee in other words, the consultative or management committee. Hon. members are apparently under the impression that mention is being made here of the local authority which is being established under Section 25bis and that is not the intention at all.

Do you contend that the clause only refers to five persons, the consultative committee of five persons?

In so far as there is reference in these sub-sections to “such committee”, it is only the committees which are referred to in paragraph (a), namely, the consultative committees and the management committees, and therefore the hon. member for Peninsula cannot assume that when people obtain the franchise by way of the qualifications prescribed in paragraph (c), that they will then of necessity lose other rights or franchise in a local authority because this does not deal with the establishment of a local authority and it is also not the position that the regulations make provision for a local authority. When a local authority is established in terms of Section 25bis the local authority is controlled according to the laws of the province. That is the position and if hon. members have not yet grasped it they must read the Bill again. However, it is so necessary that provision must be made for qualifications for voters because of the fact, as the hon. the Minister has already stated clearly, that there is an entirely different system of qualifications existing in the Cape to that which exists in the other provinces. Indeed in the other provinces, those people for whom provision is being made here have no franchise at all in most cases, and it is precisely for this reason that provision had to be made. Now the hon. gentlemen opposite come along and attack this legislation because provision is being made here for the qualifications giving these people the franchise. This is the only way in which you can give them the franchise, under the consultative committees or the management committees, because in the other provinces no such provision exists for them.

A very interesting scene has unfolded here this evening. When the hon. member for Houghton was speaking and expressed the opinion that use will be made under Section 89 of the municipal ordinance to remove voters from the municipal lists, the hon. member for Peninsula said: “Yes, but it can be changed in other words, he accepted this evening for the first time that this was the case. Previously the hon. member always opposed this with all the vehemence at his disposal.

What?

The position is simply that it is necessary in this case because these are consultative and management committees which are now being brought into being for the first time and for which no other provision is made in our ordinances or in any other legislation. We must have regulations in this regard to manage them in practice and therefore the hon. the Minister must be given the power to give them those regulations. Therefore I do not see why hon. members should object to the powers which the hon. the Minister is receiving, a step which is an everyday occurrence in the legislation of South Africa.

I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for having given us some information in regard to the recent meeting with representatives of the Natal Municipal Association. It is quite clear, as the Minister says, that has really very little relation to the matters in this particular clause. But I want to deal with one or two of the points that have arisen as a result of what the hon. the Minister said just now. Firstly, I think we have got to get clarity in relation to some of the rather involved provisions of this particular clause, and I want to point out first of all that where a management committee is formed, in terms of this Bill it can only be formed within the body of an existing local authority. That is very important indeed. When the hon. the Minister said that three of the provinces have not got legislation dealing with the formation of a local authority under those circumstances, of course he was quite right. So far as I know none of them has got provisions for that. This position which arises, arises only where an Administrator, who has the power under a local government ordinance, can excise an area from an existing local authority and then reconstitute a local authority in terms of the local government ordinance.

Order! The hon. member should confine himself to the clause.

Sir, I am dealing with the basis of a management committee.

This clause deals with powers of the Minister to make certain regulations.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister may make regulations in regard to management committees in terms of 43 bis (1) (g), (h) and (i) in respect of certain matters. He can make regulations and he can authorize the Administrators to make regulations in regard to all matters affecting the powers, functions and duties of a local authority, of a management committee. I am referring to sub-sections (g), (h) and (i) of sub-section (1) where the whole of the powers, functions and duties can be prescribed either by regulation by the Minister, or the Minister can give the power to make regulations to an Administrator. When I spoke first I pointed out that you have got to see the all-embracing nature of that clause, and to understand the granting of those powers “by the Minister, by regulation in respect of a management committee”. You have got to understand where such a management committee is situated. This clause stood over and we are now able to deal with the remainder of the other clauses in this Bill with the knowledge that they have been passed by the Committee. The point I want to establish really is in regard to those powers of the Minister, and when conferred by regulation upon the Administrator, then by the Administrator in terms of regulation. Because that is the provision in this particular clause. Just what is it doing in respect of what? It is doing it in respect of an area which is already within the area of a local authority. That is when a management committee is formed. This is a modern method of creating a sort of a new Eve out of Adam’s rib, of course in a purely municipal sense. Now the point to be borne in mind is that the management committee when so established is still part of that municipality, and there I think some hon. members are making a mistake. They are looking upon a management committee when first constituted as being outside the sphere of the parent body and separated from it. It is not separated from it. It is still part of a municipality, and the Minister now either by direct regulations or through the Administrator when the Administrator has been given those powers, can make regulations, can take from the parent body in terms of either the sub-sections which I have just quoted, the powers to prescribe the functions and duties of that management committee, or under (h) he can authorize the Administrator to make regulations to take the powers from the parent local authority and confer them upon the management committee.

Order, order! The establishment of these management committees is a principle approved of at the second reading of the Bill and in Clause 22 of the Bill.

Sir, I am not disputing that. I am sorry, but apparently you have not followed my argument. I am dealing with the powers of the Minister to make regulations to confer powers upon those constituted bodies, the management committees, which I agree in terms of the other provisions can now be constituted. They now are to obtain their powers and they obtain their powers by virtue of regulations issued either directly by the Minister or because he in turn has given by proclamation the power to the Administrator to make the regulations. But the Administrator does not create powers out of nothing. He can take powers which already exist and are exercised by the parent local authority. That is the meaning of paragraph (h). They are powers already in existence, and exercised by local authorities, and the Administrator now can by regulation take those powers from the parent authority and confer them upon the management committee, or the Minister can do so himself.

Where do you go from there? What is the point?

The point I want to make is that at that stage the management committee is still part of the municipality, and I now want to come back to the question of the franchise referred to by some hon. members, in sub-section (d), because at that stage a person who is qualified under (d) is still qualified as a municipal voter in an existing local authority if he is on the Voters’ Roll for that local authority, notwithstanding what may be read into paragraph (d). I want to put that to the Minister, because I hope the hon. the Minister is going to clear up that point. This is where a lot of basic confusion is arising at the present moment. That voter in a management committee who is now made qualified by the Minister in terms of his regulation under (c), it has been said, is living in another local authority. The fact is that he is not living in another local authority so long as it is a management committee. That voter is still living in the local authority in respect of which it is the parent for the management committee and the management committee is an integral part. So that at that stage a voter who is qualified and registered notwithstanding that under (c) he becomes qualified to vote or to be appointed as a member of the management committee, still retains the municipal franchise. It is not lost to that voter at that sage. But I submit that if that voter in a management committee area when qualified under (c) by the Minister, although qualified, has not actually been registered on the Voters’ Roll of the local authority, he cannot thereafter be so registered. There is a bar put before that voter a registered voter does not lose the franchise rights, but a qualified voter who is not registered cannot become registered. Now the point has been made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) that when a management committee in turn becomes of a higher status, under the regulations which the Minister may issue under subsequent paragraphs here, because it now becomes a local authority, an orthodox local authority, at that stage that voter loses the franchise, the municipal franchise in the parent local authority in respect of which he had been up to that moment a resident. But this is where my objection now comes in, because this is carving out of the body politic of an existing local authority of an area which is going to be predominantly occupied by Coloureds, or Asiatics, or as the case may be.

Or by Whites?

No, not by Whites. It is a group area. It is for groups “other than Whites And when the cutting out has been done from that municipality, from that local authority, at that stage it is perfectly clear that it is merely a definition of an area and the setting up of a management committee with its powers under the regulations—it still remains part of the local authority. But the Minister in his reply said that it is intended thereafter that the provinces make their own ordinances to deal with the next stages. It is that contemplation and the fact that the Minister is now taking powers under (h) to issue the necessary authority to the Administrator, which, as the Minister has said, will be the empowering authority for the provinces then to make their own regulations (that is the kind of regulations the hon. the Minister is contemplating), but at that stage, Sir, I believe you are going to get a complete mess-up in the municipal arrangements, whereby this area with its inhabitants is simply taken away holus-bolus from the jurisdiction of its local authority. [Time limit.]

I think it is necessary for me to clarify the position that I took up with regard to my interpretation of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this clause, because I am certain the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) totally misunderstood the point I made, and for the purposes of the records I think it is essential that I should clarify the position.

I want to deal with the situation as I see it:

In terms of the Minister’s proposed paragraph (c), he takes unto himself the right by regulation to prescribe the qualifications required for voting or becoming a member of the management committee. I am leaving the consultative committee out, and am dealing purely with the management committee, because that is the important aspect. He, by regulation, he alone can determine the qualifications required for voting or becoming a member of a management committee. Having done that, in terms of paragraph (d) the Minister provides that any person whom he has qualified under (c) (which I have just read), qualifies then as voter for any management committee “if on the date on which he becomes or became so qualified is not already registered as a voter for the election of members of a local authority”— then he shall not be eligible to become registered as a voter for that local authority if he is qualified as a voter for the management committee. That is the point I make. In other words, in simple language it means that the hon. the Minister in terms of the provisions that we are examining at the moment, disqualifies future Coloured voters from becoming registered voters in any municipality once he has qualified them as voters for the management committee. Now I say that is an absolute deprivation of rights as far as the Coloured people are concerned. A Coloured man may have a property, may be eligible in every respect to become qualified as a voter in a local authority in terms of the law as it exists now, but the Minister merely because he has qualified him by regulation entitling him to vote for a management committee, deprives him of the right of becoming a voter in this local authority. That is the point I am making, and I hope the hon. member appreciates that. I say that is a deprivation of rights in respect of which the Coloured man will have no say whatsoever. He is entirely at the mercy of the Minister. And here I want to return to paragraph (c). The Minister in prescribing these qualifications required for voting or becoming a member of the management committee, can do it entirely on his own, on his own initiative, entirely at his own discretion, without reference to the Administrators of the provinces. That is why I said that this amounts to dictatorial powers which the Minister is taking. I want to say again as I said originally that there is no reflection upon the present incumbent of the office. My same criticism would apply to whoever the Minister was. That is why I used the term “highly dictatorial powers” that the Minister is taking unto himself. That unfortunately the hon. member for Kempton Park, who is not here, completely misunderstood. It was quite obvious from his intervention in the debate that he does not understand the basic principles of the clause under discussion. Under ordinary circumstances I would not take the trouble to answer the hon. member. He however had the temerity to suggest that I had some ulterior motives in describing what I feel about this clause. I want to say that I have no motives other than trying to do for the Coloured people my best in order to preserve their rights. That is the only motive I have in putting this argument to the hon. the Minister.

But why use such language?

Because this clause justifies that language. Now the hon. member for Kempton Park tried to mislead the Committee by saying that “this clause follows the pattern of our South African law dealing with local authorities”. I challenge him, or any member on that side of the House, to cite to this Committee one single instance where franchise rights were taken away from a section of our people and in place of those rights were having imposed upon them a law such as this whereby they are told that in place of the rights that are being taken away from them, a Minister of the Republic, will determine what their qualifications shall be in future. There is not a single instance throughout the whole of our pattern of South African law where such a situation has arisen. Even when we discussed the removal of the Coloureds from the Common Roll, this Parliament decided what the qualifications were going to be. It was not left to the Minister to determine. I think it was the hon. member for Ceres who pointed out that when municipalities have from time to time changed their boundaries, people were taken out of one municipality and placed in another. But it was not left to a Minister to determine their qualifications. It is determined by the local authority in terms of the by-laws approved of by the provincial administration. It goes through the process of the law where the representatives of the people have the right to deliberate on the matter, to discuss it, and to present their point of view. But here, under (c), the hon. the Minister will lay down the qualifications. Parliament will have no say in the matter, the provincial administrations will have no say in the matter, and what is more important, the Coloured people whose rights are being taken away from them, will have no say as to what their qualifications are to be. That is the basis of my criticism to this clause. I say that in those circumstances I am justified in saying that these are the most dictatorial powers that the hon. the Minister is taking unto himself. As I see the provisions of paragraph (d) read in conjunction with (c), this absurd situation will arise that although a Coloured man may have property in a municipal area, merely because the Minister by regulation, and without consulting him, qualifies him to vote or become a member for a management committee, he loses the right of becoming a registered voter in future of that local authority.

Order! That argument has been used over and over again.

If he is already on the voters’ roll, he remains there.

That is quite right. If he is on the voters’ roll he is not taken off, until it becomes a local authority and then he is automatically taken off. But the point I am trying to make now is that the hon. Minister is depriving for the future any further Coloured voters from becoming qualified to vote on the common municipal franchise roll. He does that merely by qualifying them for a management committee in respect of which qualification they have no say whatsoever. That gives rise to an absurd situation whereby without their having any say at all, any say as to what the qualifications will be, their rights to become registered in future are taken away from them. [Time limit.]

I would appreciate it if the hon. Minister would bear with me for a moment as I too am seeking clarity on this clause. I want to preface my remarks by saying that we cannot forget that the Act which this Bill is amending is the Group Areas Act. Whatever is happening in terms of this Bill is, therefore, qualified by the provisions already in the Group Areas Act. It has been said that under this particular clause, a Coloured person already having the qualifications for franchise in a local authority area, will not lose these franchise rights. I want to challenge this statement. The individual who at present has franchise rights in a local authority area has those rights—assuming that this particular management committee has not yet been set up—as a result of complying with the qualifications laid down by the provincial administration for voting in municipal elections or for sitting as a member on the municipal council. This right is based on (a) the ownership of a property of a certain valuation or (b) the occupation of property of a certain valuation within that local authority area. As long as he does that and he pays his rates, he will be entitled to a vote. This applies to both Whites and non-Whites at present. When a group area is set up under this Bill, however, the person for whom that area is established—let us assume he is a Coloured—will be required to move into that area in terms of the group area regulations. I think the hon. Minister will concede that this is the position. There is a certain time limit, but eventually he would have to move. Once a person has been earmarked for a particular race group, he will not be allowed to own or occupy property in an area for another group—which for purposes of clarity we will say is a White area. He can do so to a certain extent on the authority of a permit but ultimately he would have to vacate his property in that area and dispose of it to a person belonging to the group for which that area has been proclaimed.

He will not be compelled to do so. He will not be compelled to sell his property.

He can retain it under permit.

He can retain ownership until his death.

I will accept that. His property, however, qualifies him for a vote in that area. Now he is moved into the group area set aside for his particular group. Let us assume that he is an occupier and not an owner and that he has to move out of the house he occupies and which entitles him to a vote in the White area. When he moves into his particular group area, he will automatically forfeit, whether the Minister likes it or not, his voting in the White area. For that he will receive these limited voting rights the qualifications of which have not yet been fixed. No one, I think, can deny that by moving out of the White area, he suffers a distinct diminution of his franchise rights which he has enjoyed, in the Cape Province, by virtue of the fact that he occupied property which qualified him for the franchise.

What is wrong with that?

There is everything wrong with it. In fact, there is nothing right with it, because you are using legislation of this kind in terms of which you are, under a camouflage, depriving a person of his existing franchise qualifications and at the same time trying to tell him that the franchise he is going to receive will be quite as good as that which he had before. It is a complete deceit of the individuals concerned. I do not think the hon. Minister can deny that is, in fact, the position. I accept that a man who owns a property, can retain that property, as the hon. Minister said, until his death. But that will not be the position with a man who occupies a property in the White area. The moment he moves, he is automatically disqualified for the franchise in that area whilst not receiving, in the new area, a similar right. What he will have is at any rate only a limited and restricted right because it can only operate in that particular area of the management committee and not in the municipal area as a whole. We do not, in fact, know at this stage what these franchise rights will be. This is a point which must be cleared up: otherwise the Coloured people are being led up the garden path with this piece of legislation. They are being promised that they will get something which they in fact will not get.

I do not rise to reply to the arguments to which I have already replied. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has, however, once again proved that his approach and the approach of other hon. members on the other side to this matter is one in which they concentrate only on one particular section in one particular province where they care nothing for the rest of the people. I would like to say once again that the person who has title rights in respect of property is not compelled by the Group Areas Act to forfeit those rights.

But what about an occupier?

The occupier would in any case have to move at a later stage when alternative accommodation could be obtained for him. However, even if an owner moved to the new group area and was not permitted to occupy his property in the other group area, he would still be able to retain that property.

What becomes of his franchise qualifications in the other area?

His qualification cannot be affected. In the case of a person who is registered as a voter in the other area on the day on which the management committee is brought into being for his new area, the registration of such person is not affected. Hon. members now say that this will hold good for the persons who can be registered in the future. In this connection I would just like to say that it has been my standpoint the whole evening that we are making it possible by these regulations whereby not only will you assist these restricted groups of persons in regard to franchise, but you will set a development in motion which will also bring the franchise to persons who would otherwise not have had it. It is of no assistance to us to argue any further in this regard. It appears to me as though hon. members are staring blindly at these small groups of people who have certain voting rights in one specific province, while the rest of the people have to fend for themselves.

The hon. Minister says that we are concerned only with one small group of people who has certain rights in one particular province and that we are worried about voting rights being taken away from them although they might become voters in their own areas when management committees have been established. He says that we are worried about these while we are not worried about others in other provinces where previously no rights existed at all. I would like to ask the hon. Minister to tell this House exactly what powers these management committees are going to exercise. If the giving of powers to Coloureds and Indians under the management committees in their own local authority areas, is going to mean so much to these people that one should ignore the fact that this is really a pegging Bill for voters on the roll at present, then I should like the hon. Minister to tell us exactly what sort of powers and functions he imagines these management committees will be able to exercise. I ask him this specifically because the practical difficulties involved are enormous. These were already examined by various municipal authorities which gave evidence before the Rossouw Commission and their views are mentioned in the report of the commission. In practically every instance it was pointed out that it was virtually impossible to hand over functions, which normally are carried out by large local authorities, to smaller management committees. This is the point. The hon. Minister says that he is giving rights. I want to know what rights. There is no point in giving the right to a person to vote for a management committee which does not exercise any function of value whatsoever. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) was quite wrong when he said that this Bill was in keeping with the general trend throughout the world. On the contrary, Sir, it is quite the opposite.

I had in mind the trend in connection with the establishment of local authorities.

It is not a question here of establishing local authorities but rather one of disintegrating existing local authorities.

Order! The hon. member must return to the clause under discussion.

I am speaking on the clause which lays down the powers and functions which the hon. Minister may hand over to these management committees. My point in this connection, Sir, is that there are no powers and functions that he can hand over which will have any practical value whatsoever. Let us examine what powers are in fact exercised by local authorities. These include the provision of various services, such as water, electricity, sewerage, drainage, health services, fire brigade, etc. These are amongst the normal functions of local authorities.

Which social functions?

I have made mention of them. Health services, for instance. How dangerous might it be for health services to be decentralized to any great extent because what affects one small community can affect the entire community! No one lives in a self-contained group area. You can reside there but certainly not find your whole livelihood there. The Coloureds living in Athlone, the Africans living in the south-western complex of Johannesburg and the Indians living in their group areas in Durban, live there and sleep there but during the day they work among the entire community under this integrated economy of ours. To disintegrate health services will, therefore, be a very dangerous thing indeed. It was specifically mentioned by the Cape Town Medical Officer of Health when he gave evidence before the Rossouw Commission. That is why I am asking the hon. Minister to inform this House which functions he is contemplating handing over to these management committees. Is he contemplating handing over the function of the provision of water? Is he contemplating handing over sewerage services, drainage, roads? Each of these functions are closely associated with larger local authorities. So what is the practical use of these new powers and these new functions which the Minister is talking of handing over to the management committees? I say that it does not exist. I want to say again that this measure serves as a facade for the pegging of the franchise rights of the Coloured people in the Cape Province. It means, at any rate, no extention of any rights to persons who did not have such rights before. The reason for this is simply that the management committees will not be able to exercise any function which will have real value. That is confirmed by the evidence given by the various local authorities which gave evidence before the Rossouw Commission. Let us have a look at some of the evidence given by these local authorities. The local authority of Paarl said that we should wait until arrangements in regard to the group areas were completed; that of the Strand said that the whole plan was premature; that of Goodwood said it was not in favour of it.

Order! The hon. member must return to the clause.

Surely, Sir, this is evidence given by local authorities on the question of handing over power and functions to these management committees.

To make regulations!

The municipality of Paarl said that it did not want to see these powers handed over until group area arrangements were completed. Some of the other opinions I have already referred to. Bellville said it favoured the handing over of these powers but with reservations. Parow was in favour and, therefore, the exception. Somerset West was dead against it.

Order! The hon. member must confine herself to the sub-section dealing with the powers and functions of these committees.

The principle thereof has already been adopted.

I want to question this because I think it is going to affect debates in this House vitally in future. Surely. Sir. the clause itself is under discussion now and if the clause happens to contain a principle, then I submit we are free to discuss that principle.

Order! The principle of the clause is not under discussion but only the details. The hon. member should, therefore, confine herself to the details.

I am trying to do so. Sir. This clause deals with the powers and functions of the proposed committees and it is exactly on this question that these local authorities gave evidence. The City Engineer of Cape Town discussed the exact powers and functions which could be handed over to a local authority for the Cape Coloured group areas. Upington discussed the exact powers and functions which would be feasible to hand over, and said that from an economic point of view it was not feasible to hand over such powers and functions. Vryburg, it is true, said it was in favour, but Cape Town was dead against handing over of the powers and functions in regard to water, drainage, sewerage, roads, health, of every single power or function exercised by the local authority in Cape Town. Now, Sir, if these are not the details of the clause, I would like to know the details. The powers and functions exercised by the local authority of Cape Town are to provide these services and in terms of every single one of these services Cape Town was dead against it. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us what powers and functions he intends handing over to these management committees, and then we want to know what the hon. Minister will give in replacement of the future rights of voters in municipal areas of the Cape Province.

Mr. Chairman, I move—That the Question be now put.

I think that is disgraceful.

Order! I am not prepared to accept the motion at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister was very careful. when the discussion on this clause first began, to tell us that before he promulgated any regulation under this clause he would confer with the two United Municipal Organizations, and he was also going to confer with the Provinces. But the hon. the Minister has said nothing at all about conferring with the local authorities, and indeed, if one looks at (i) there is no question about consultation with a local authority. If we look at (h) it provides that the hon. the Minister can authorize the Administrator of a province to confer or impose upon any management committee established in his province such powers, functions and duties of the local authority which has jurisdiction in that area for which such committees have been established, as he in his discretion may determine. Now, what this means is not that the hon. Minister can grant or confer certain powers upon these management committees, but it also means that he or the Administrator can take away powers from the local authorities. The most extraordinary thing about (h) is that it provides that the hon. Minister can give the Administrator that power. He just makes a regulation saying that the Administrator from now on has the power to confer or impose upon a management committee certain powers and functions. Now, Mr. Chairman, how are those powers and functions to be imposed? Perhaps the hon. Minister will tell us that. Is the Administrator just going to write to the local authorities and tell them that from now on they do not have certain powers? It is no use hon. members shouting “ag, man”. We have seen a lot of the things this Government does. They do not like to confer with people if they can help it. If the hon. Minister intends that there shall be consultation, then why does he not say so? He mentions consultation in this clause with the Administrator. There is no mention of consultation with the local authorities and according to this sub-clause he can merely authorize the Administrator to confer these powers. The objections the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) raised against the making of regulations also apply here. I do not think the hon. Minister has answered those objections. There are not going to be any regulations. The only regulation will be that the Minister will publish a regulation reading like this: In terms of Section 25bis of this Act the Minister of the Interior confers on the Administrator of the Cape or the Transvaal, or wherever it is, the power to impose upon any management committee certain powers and functions and duties, within an area of an existing local authority. In other words, from that moment the matter is completely in the dark. No one is going to know what powers they are. There is no provision for consultation and I do not suppose the hon. the Minister can give us the assurance, that he gave this House in his own case, that the Administrator will consult with all these people. The hon. Minister can give us assurances about what he proposes to do, but he can give us no assurance as to what the Administrators are going to do in the conferment of these powers. Sir, the situation here is absurd. If the hon. Minister is not going to tell us what sort of powers he is going to grant to the Administrator, then, Sir, I do not see how we in this Committee can agree to the granting of these powers. What we are being asked to do here is to give the Minister carte blanche to give to whom he wants what powers he wants, after he has consulted with whomsoever he wants to consult. I hope the Minister will give us some indication as to how, in what manner, the Administrator is going to confer these powers, if the Minister gives him those powers by regulation. The essence of any law, including a regulation, is that the public should have some knowledge of it. The essence of promulgation is to give the people who are affected by it some sort of notification. Usually one gets some sort of notification that the matter is going to be discussed. The hon. Minister misses the point completely, with respect. What the Minister suggests is that we cannot discuss here what sort of regulations there are going to be, what sort of powers they are going to hand over. He said we cannot do that because we in this Parliament will be imposing something which would be general throughout the country, whereas in fact from time to time and from province to province the regulations will have to be different. The point the Minister misses is this, that if we were to discuss those things in this House we would at least discuss them and they would be discussed in the light of day. But what is going to happen? These regulations will be made in a backroom by the hon. Minister’s backroom boys. They are never going to see the light of day until they are promulgated. But the reasons for their promulgation no one will ever know. So far as (h) is concerned there will not even be any promulgation. There won’t even be any notification that the law has in fact been made. I hope the Minister will give us some sort of indication as to whether or not he proposes, when he gives the Administrator powers, also to prescribe in the regulation conferring that power on the Administrator, that the Administrator shall consult with the local authority concerned, in the first place, and that the regulations for the conferment of powers shall be published in the Provincial Gazette or in the Government Gazette. I hope the hon. Minister will answer this and give us some indication as to how he feels about it, because the Minister’s reply and his attitude in this regard certainly will determine to a large extent what our attitude will be to this particular sub-section.

The hon. member mentioned one point which is worthwhile replying to. Earlier in the evening I said that I gave an undertaking to a municipal association to effect certain amendments. We are busy framing those amendments and considering them. One of the principles which I would like to see put through is that as far as possible the local authorities concerned should be consulted. This is a principle about which I feel strongly. It does not help simply to consult the provincial authority, but that particular local authority with whose assistance and co-operation you have to achieve these things has to be consulted. It is necessary for them to be consulted. I told the municipal executive that I would consider making this concession to them in this regard, and I will effect the necessary amendments in the Other Place. The result of these amendments may be that in this sub-section which reads: “… in consultation with the Administrator of the province concerned regarding the powers and functions of a local authority …,” we may perhaps insert the words: “after consultation with the local authority concerned.” Then, however, the amendments must be clear to me after I have had a proper opportunity to consider the clauses thoroughly. I want to put through that principle as far as possible, namely, that the local authority will be consulted. I gave them this undertaking and I shall do this in the Other Place.

Will the hon. the Minister answer a question before he sits down? Does (h) give an Administrator sufficient authority to introduce an ordinance in his provincial council? If we follow the train of thought of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) in connection with the power which is given to the Administrator to impose or apply powers and functions, it means that the regulations of the hon. the Minister can empower the Administrator to introduce ordinances. Is this a method of granting powers?

No, Mr. Chairman, the question of ordinances is a matter for the provincial council concerned. They can do so or not do so. I hope that the other provinces will make their ordinances of their own accord in such a way that they will comply with the requirements with which the Cape complies, namely, that they can give full municipal authority to these people. In the Cape it is possible to bring a fully-fledged non-European local authority into being.

I just wondered how far the authorization went.

Yes, but this has nothing to do with it. I am not engaged now in assuming powers to prevent the Administrator giving authority to introduce an ordinance. His provincial council has that authority and it is not my intention to make any prescription in that connection. I only hope that they will make haste with their ordinances so that they will reach the stage which the Cape has reached, namely, that once I am finished with the executive, they will be able to bring a fully-fledged municipality into being if that is possible.

Mr. Chairman, I want to return very briefly to sub-section (d) and to the hon. Minister’s reply to the questions I put to him earlier. The hon. Minister decided in his reply that we were somewhat more concerned with what is happening in one province than what were the benefits likely to accrue to people in the other three provinces, who at present enjoy no such franchise. That is not the case. What we are concerned with here is that in connection with thise clause we have had the statement that it means no diminution of franchise rights to the people already enjoying them. Under no form of argument whatsoever, linking this with group areas legislation, can one accept that finding. The Minister’s reply either indicates that he is not fully acquainted with the conditions under which local government franchise applies in the Cape—and I do not think that is the case; I think he is well acquainted with it—or the clause itself in its present form is being used as a cloak in order to diminish the rights, the half-century old rights of the municipal franchise of the Coloured people in the Cape, under the guise that you are extending that franchise to the other provinces. But you are doing that at the cost of a 50-year-old right in this Province, which the people who have enjoyed it are going to lose. I think that is a condition we cannot accept. If that is so, and it is so, then it means we are expected to accept the shadow for the substance. My advice to the Coloured people who are affected is that they also refuse to accept it as an equivalent of the rights they have enjoyed up to now. It is as much a diminution of their rights as being placed on a separate roll. It is equivalent to placing the municipal vote in the Cape Province on a separate roll, in the same manner as that in which the parliamentary franchise was placed on a separate roll. That is the ultimate result of this particular amendment. I say therefore that the clause we are dealing with contains that hidden factor. It is a method of implementing Government policy in regard to the diminution of the Coloured man’s rights in this Province, and it is not, as has been so widely publicized, a genuine effort to give them a wider franchise than that they already possess.

Mr. Chairman, I think in connection with (h) and (i) the hon. Minister should examine what may happen at some future time in applying either or both of those clauses to a particular local authority, say in the Transvaal. In order to illustrate my point, I would like him to consider an area in the City of Johannesburg which I think is known fairly well to him. Take that area bounded on the east by Sauer Street, on the west by the Fordsburg Dip or a line running through it; on the north by Bree Street where the present Municipal Market is, and on the south by Fox Street. This is an area which comprises the townships known as Ferreirastown, Burghersdorp and the western portion of the central area. That area is occupied to some extent by Indians, and they live and trade in that area.

Has a group area been proclaimed there?

No.

The hon. member must confine his remarks to this clause.

I am sorry, Sir, I was diverted. What I want to ask the hon. Minister is this. Assuming he were to have a management committee set up in that area …

He cannot; it is not a group area.

I have tried to bring the matter to a stage where all the necessary requirements have been complied with. Assuming it is a group area, and then the Minister in terms of this clause wants to set up a management committee in that area—let us not just talk vaguely about people who may be affected, and towns that may be affected. Let us talk about a specific portion of a known municipal area. Then, Sir, assuming the hon. Minister has done that, he will have set up his management committee under this particular clause in the very heart of the city of Johannesburg. He would, in fact, be creating a Protectorate in the sense that we know it in the Republic of South Africa, within the confines of a large municipality …

At 10.25 p.m. the Deputy-Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.

House to resume in Committee on 16 March.