Mr. Speaker, after the few introductory remarks which I made last night, I thought that it would be a good thing to dispose of one matter immediately, a matter which the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) raised here. It dealt with the report which appeared yesterday on the front page of the Cape Times in connection with the Book Trade Association of Southern Africa, on which the hon. member for Orange Grove thought fit to brand my behaviour towards that Association as being discourteous and also compared my action with the courteous action of the hon. the Minister of Finance. I think that it is necessary to quote three letters which were exchanged between myself and the Association in this connection. The first was an acknowledgement of the receipt of the memorandum about which hon. members complained. On my instruction my private secretary informed them on 23 August that the Minister had had the opportunity of studying the memorandum and (translation)—

The Association replied to me as follows on 4 September (translation)—

What follows now is very important (translation)—

What is the date please?

I replied on 17 November.

Two months later.

That makes no difference; the hon. member must listen to the reply. There is nothing wrong with the time factor. My private secretary’s answer was as follows (translation)—

Next comes the sentence containing my invitation (translation)—

and notice was given on the opening day—

The only reply I received to that letter was the last letter of 29 January in which they had this to say (translation)—

namely, that they still had objections—

It is very clear that this is an entirely different picture from the one which the hon. member tried to paint—as though I paid no attention whatever to these people. They had every opportunity to make their representations after notice of this legislation was given on Friday, 18 January. The legislation was available to them for a week [Interjection]. This is a very involved subject. I do not owe the hon. member an explanation, certainly not in regard to a matter of this nature, but I leave it to the House to decide whether I dealt discourteously with these people and gave them no opportunity to make their representations.

It became very clear to me during this debate that hon. members were quite ignorant of the present system by means of which we control undesirable literature or try to control it as well as the restrictive provisions of the proposed clauses which we have embodied in this Bill. In order therefore to eliminate the confusion which prevails on the other side and the possible confusion which they can create amongst members of the public, I think that it is necessary for me to explain how the systems are linked up—both the present and the proposed systems—so that at the Committee Stage we will not have a repetition of what we have had in this debate.

I want firstly to deal with our domestic literature, that is to say, literature which has its origin in the Republic. The existing legislation which controls this literature is chiefly provincial. No indecent literature, no matter of what nature, may be distributed in the Transvaal, and the penalty for an offence is a fine of R150 and/or 6 months’ imprisonment. This is provided for in Section 2 (7) of the Criminal Amendment Act, of 1909 (Transvaal).

The decision of the court.

Yes, we are still dealing with the court; we are reintroducing the right of appeal to the court, a procedure from which the United Party departed in 1931. In the Orange Free State the distribution of profane, indecent or obscene literature is forbidden in all local government areas and on all diggings in the province. This is provided in Section 6 (19) of Ordinance 21 of 1902. The possible penalty for an offence in this regard is a fine of R4 or

30 days’ imprisonment as against R150 in the Transvaal. The Cape has two provisions. In the first place the distribution of indecent or obscene literature is forbidden and the penalty imposed is a fine of R20 or 3 months’ imprisonment for a first offence with a considerably higher penalty for organized trade and particularly too for second offences. This is laid down in Sections 2 and 4 of Act 31 of 1892. The other legal provision is Section 7 of Act

31 of 1802 which provides for a fine of R40 or 6 months’ imprisonment for sending indecent or obscene literature by mail. The most important provision in Natal is that every local authority throughout that province is authorized to forbid the sale of literature within its area—that means all the thickly populated areas of Natal—literature which it considers to be indecent, offensive, obscene or objectionable. In terms of Section 191 (4) of Ordinance 21 of 1942 the local authority can confiscate all copies which are so regarded and destroy them. I want to point out two aspects of the legislation in Natal: The City Council or the Town Council or whichever body is appointed has an absolute discretion to decide which literature is undesirable—this is the present position—and as long as it is honest, no court can intervene. The power given to its local authorities by the Natal Ordinance is a drastic one. But it has another characteristic and that is that this can only take place if all the local authorities in Natal—and there may be a few dozen of them—adopt the same resolution. The resolution cannot be taken by one authority on its own. If such local authority were to adopt such a rash resolution in regard to some literature or other, many other authorities would refuse to follow its example and accordingly one would have stalemate and nothing would be done. The shortcomings of a control system of this nature are obvious. The fact that the city fathers cannot be expected carefully to examine all the rubbish which can be purchased at every café is, of course, not their fault because this is naturally an impossible task. Over and above this area legislation a general prohibition is embodied in the Post Office Act. I refer to Section 94 (1) (c) of the Post Office Act of 1958. Indecent, obscene or blasphemous literature may not be sent through the post in the Republic or South West Africa, and the possible penalty is a fine of R100 or 6 months’ imprisonment. From this it is quite clear that the yardstick which is prescribed is reasonably uniform and that with the exception of Natal, all the prosecuting bodies are the police, that is to say, the Attorneys-General. But during 1931 the Entertainments (Censorship) Act was adopted which made provision for the censoring of films, public entertainment and pictures and in the Customs Act of 1955 as well, Section 21, taken over from Section 23 of Act 9 of 1913, we find provision for the censorship of undesirable literature etc., from abroad.

Now I want to compare the most important principles of the existing system with the proposed system in this Bill. The function of the courts is my first point of comparison. In the old system of the Transvaal, the Free State, Natal and the Cape, a fairly uniform yardstick was laid down. While prosecutions can take place in the Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape because it is a crime to offend against the norm, the decision in Natal on the question of undesirability is entirely at the discretion of the City Council, the town council etc. The second point in connection with the courts is that in the Entertainments (Censorship) Act of 1931 a yardstick is laid down for film and film advertisements and for public entertainments and pictures. The Board of Censors set up in terms of that Act make the decisions and there is only an appeal to the Minister of the Interior and not to the court. As regards the political capital which hon. members opposite try to make in connection with the so-called political censorship which is alleged to be a danger in this Bill, I cannot understand how they could be satisfied with a law for 32 years and never object to it; that when they were in power from 1931 to 1948 they did not try to do away with that appeal to a political figure, a Minister.

But I have a third point: In terms of the Customs Act of 1955, Section 21, the Minister of the Interior is the absolutely final judge in deciding whether goods about which doubt arises are indecent, obscene or offensive, without his being restricted in any way by definitions of these terms. There are no definitions of those terms. Can hon. members see how much scope the Minister has? There is nothing to hamper him. He has an absolute discretion under the Customs Act of 1955 to make a final decision without having any definition of the meaning of indecent or obscene or offensive.

That is the old law which pleases hon. members so much that they would like to see it continued with if there are to be any laws at all. It is not only the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) who wants no restrictions at all; he does not believe in that. There is a further point of comparison. In terms of this Bill norms are laid down to which I shall come back later. It is being provided that persons who offend against the norm can only be prosecuted on the instructions of the Attorney-General. The Minister cannot do so; no prosecutions can take place and when a person offends against the norm it is not a political figure who has him prosecuted; it is the Attorney-General who has to take legal action in all cases in which he receives complaints.

We will remember that when we come to the Committee Stage.

The hon. member can wait for the Committee Stage; I am trying to make his confusion a little less confounded! The second point is that any decision which the board may make regarding the undesirability of any publication or object submitted to it, is subject to appeal to the highest or the lowest. Previously there was only an appeal to the Minister. In this case persons can appeal to the highest courts. Hon. members will find this provision in Clause 14. No provision is made for an appeal to the court in terms of the present provisions of either the Entertainments (Censorship) Act of 1931 or the Customs Act of 1955. How can hon. members adopt the standpoint that they have adopted? During the term of office of the United Party Government from 1939 to 1948 these provisions were used without having regard to the rule of law, a point which the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) emphasized in a masterly fashion when he pointed out the mistakes of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). They were not at all concerned that the Rule of Law was being violated. This Government is now coming forward with this Bill; it is restoring the Rule of Law to its place of honour and it is now experiencing opposition from those people who always have a lot to say about the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is being honourably restored because the accusation can perhaps rightly be made that a political figure may be partial and may keep certain publications out of the country and not allow domestic publications to see the light of day. The accusation can perhaps be made that he is doing so for political reasons. Hon. members opposite have continued to harp on the same string—what the cruel Minister will do and how he will control matters—and they have done so merely because he is going to appoint a board. But earlier when they had full control they were quite happy and satisfied that the law should operate in that way. As far as the board itself is concerned I want to point out that in the case of the Natal city fathers who have to undertake this censorship, no requirement of expert knowledge is made. In the case of the present Board of Censors which was appointed under the 1931 Act, no requirement of expert knowledge was made. It is a free appointment in the last case and it is a free election in the first case where expert knowledge is not a condition of appointment, although it would be very silly of any Minister to appoint ignorant people to this office. This Bill now lays down the qualifications of three of the members of the board. The Chairman of the Select Committee stated that he wished that he could lay down by legislation the qualifications of each of the nine members but in this case it was something of a compromise in that the qualifications of only three members were mentioned. Here we have a board of high standing and the law provides the degree of proficiency of the chairman, the vice-chairman and at least one other member. Previously, when it could have been any person, when the danger existed and perhaps also became reality, that political appointments could be made, nothing was said about it and the United Party were quite happy with it. The argument has been raised here that the board will be a tool in the hands of the Minister; that it will be appointed and will have to be reappointed and so the Minister will call the tune. I want to tell hon. members that that does not happen in practice. As one of the hon. members opposite had the fairness to put it, no one can expect the Minister of the Interior himself to read every book which comes into the country. He is dependent upon the opinion given to him by the members of his Board of Censors. A great deal has been said about this Board of Censors, but I want to say that the present members of the board have, by means of hard work and judicious action, done what in their opinion has been in the best interests of the country. Any censor board, no matter how many expert people it may consist of, can make a mistake just as any individual on that side or here on this side can make a mistake. Judgment in these cases is subjective to a large extent. Other people may consider that a subjective judgment is wrong—that is so and it will remain so—but the fact remains that I have only praise for what has been done under the present Act by the chairman and his members during the short time that I have been Minister.

The most important point is the question of the norm, the vagueness of the norm and the impossibility of fixing a norm. Most of the argument arose in this regard. As far as the board itself is concerned one does not know where one is with the United Party. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A.

F. Nel) made the point very effectively last night, that the United Party on the Select Committee voted for legislation through the medium of their members on that Committee; in the second place, when they divided on the clauses, they voted unanimously for Clauses 2 and 4 setting up the board. We have heard the most widespread arguments as to whether there should be a board; we heard that if there is a board it will only be a Ministerial board which will be under the control of the Minister. No amendments were moved on the Select Committee and I hope that the United Party will remain consistent. I have no objection to our differing on the question of norms, no matter how subjective it may be. When we reach the Committee Stage then, let us try to improve this Bill, but I want to say this: It is not necessary to adopt the principle at the Second Reading; the principle was supported by the United Party on the Select Committee.

As far as a yardstick is concerned, norms are laid down in the existing laws and in the Customs Act, norms which are fairly uniform although they do differ somewhat in their wording. The norms however boil down to this: That whatever is indecent, obscene or offensive is undesirable. That is the principle and it is not a new principle which this Government is putting into operation. This principle was in operation before Union; we needed it already at that stage. This principle was better defined and consolidated in 1931 and where it is again being modernized now in 1963 it is quite possible that it will again have to be examined and will quite probably have to be amended in 1983. I find nothing wrong with what has happened from time to time because time does not stand still and circumstances change, but as far as the principle is concerned this has been done since before Union and it has been done on the basis that what has been indecent, offensive and obscene, has been undesirable. I challenge any member opposite to say that we should not say such things; that we should say, as many United Party speakers said, that the greatest freedom lies in the fact that we must allow people to write and produce what they want to and if eventually one does not know what to call the thing that has been produced, one gives it the general name of “art” and then it is art. A norm has been laid down for films in the Entertainments (Censorship) Act of 1931. The board is forbidden to approve of a film which in the opinion of the board suggests something which is detremental to the security of the State or which tends to disturb law or order or to detrimentally affect public welfare or to harm morality. These provisions are in the Censorship Act of 1931. We were told that we have sufficient legislation to maintain law and order and a whole series of legislative measures were quoted in terms of which this could be done, according to the view of hon. members opposite. It is said that we have sufficient legislation, including emergency legislation, to ensure the safety of the State; we have sufficient other legislation to ensure the welfare of the public, so why this measure? I say that this Bill has been taken over from a law under which we have operated for 32 years.

There have been many amendments to it.

Yes, I will come to the amendments. The hon. member is unnecessarily concerned; he will hear everything. The board is also forbidden to approve of films which in the opinion of the board—the opinion of the board alone and nobody else—which depict a large variety of matters in an offensive manner. I want to refer particularly to two of these because they have already been referred to in this debate. I refer to section 5 (2) (1) and (m) of the 1931 Act. Let me quote (I);

In (m) we find that scenes are forbidden which tend to expose one or the other section of the public to ridicule or contempt. Hon. members who have followed this debate, and you, Mr. Speaker, will remember that these were two points which were most emphasized and which were even most ridiculed. We even had questions like the following from “adults” opposite: If one ridicules the Government slightly, will one find oneself in trouble? Things were said about the religious aspect which I do not want to repeat and those who said them came very close to being reprimanded by Mr. Speaker. These two principles under which we have operated have been written into the present Bill in the same way except that they have been modernized. There is this important difference that these two matters as well as the others which have been mentioned specifically above, and also the other matters which have been taken from the 1931 Act, have no longer to be so merely in the opinion of the board and without an appeal to the courts. There must be facts. It is no longer left to one’s subjective judgement; the improvement in this Bill is that it must rest on fact. Is this not a restoration of the Rule of Law? Is it not true that anything that one wants to prove in court must be based on fact? They must be facts which can be tested in court without their being completely protected by the cloak of the absolute judgement of absolute board members whose proficiency is not even ensured by law. There is no assurance in the 1931 Act. Nowhere is the proficiency of these people assured. They are chosen and one would be silly to choose incompetent people. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) will never understand it; he must not try to understand it. These are the provisions in this Act which the United Party consider adequate and which they want to leave unchanged. They say: You must not introduce this Bill. Neither did they say: We must amend the old Act. They want nothing to do with it. They merely said: We want to effect no improvement because we want this Bill to be read a second time this day 6 months; in other words, it must not be read a second time at all.

This Bill, yes.

This Bill, yes. Using this Bill as their major premise, taking the points on which the Select Committee were in favour, hon. members could have indicated that they would accept this principle at the Committee Stage, but that they would move the necessary amendments in respect of certain matters. Then they would have moved a far more reasonable amendment. When I think of the old Censorship Act of 1931, it is a wonder to me that we still have a copy of Milton or Chaucer in the country from which to quote.

I want to point out further to hon. members that under the aforementioned provisions regarding religious feelings—these were the provisions in the 1931 Act—two books were forbidden, namely, “Protocols, of the Elders of Zion” and “Maria Monk". I want to ask my Jewish friends now: If those two books had not been banned, one can imagine the hullabaloo that would have been raised in this country because the Government allowed such undesirable literature to enter the country. The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) knows nothing about the books; we will give him copies so that he can read them.

But they were banned.

What would they have done? No, I suppose the ban should have been arranged in such a way that these books were allowed to enter the country, according to the hon. member for Turffontein. He is very curious to know the contents of those books, [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein must give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to make his speech. The hon. member is trying to make a speech from his seat.

In this connection I also want to refer to Clause 5 (4) (b) (iv) where it is laid down that this Bill shall not apply to any material in a publication of a bona fide religious nature. It was suggested here that religion could be interfered with. But no bona fide religious literature can be affected by this Bill. The norms laid down in Clauses 5, 6, 10 and 12, with the aforementioned important difference, have been taken over practically word for word in a modern form from the 1931 Act. The examples of undesirability given in Clause 6 will only apply—there was much objection to Clause 6—where it is undesirable in the opinion of the court, not even in the opinion of the board. It is only the opinion of the court that counts. They must determine whether such things tend to be harmful. It is not left to the absolute judgment of an absolute board or an absolute Minister, which is the position under the present legislation and which the United Party is satisfied to leave unchanged. In terms of the aforementioned provincial laws all persons and publications were subject to their provisions, but in terms of this Bill the board can eliminate the uncertainty of prosecution by declaring that a publication is not undesirable. The board can do so. The board can say in advance: “We say that this publication is not undesirable.” What is more, newspapers whose publishers are members of the South African Press Union will henceforward no longer be subject to this provision, only to their own code. They adopted it last year when the Select Committee was sitting— the Government as such adopted it—but we said that we also expected the newspapers to live up to that code of honour. In excluding newspapers we hope that they will succeed in subjecting themselves to that code of honour and that self-imposed task. Apart from what I have said here, the board can exempt any writer, any publisher, any printer, any distributor, any person who has anything to do with a publication, from the provisions of this Bill, and allow such person to continue his work without any legal restrictions in this connection. I want to refer hon. members to Clause 1 (2) and 5 (5) in terms of which some importers of a certain book can obtain full exemption from the board for the distribution of that book in the Republic. It has been suggested that these people sit there with thick red pencils. I have already stated in my introductory speech that writers and others will discover that a good name is far better than possession of all the gold and silver in this country. These people who are known to have good names will not be subject to these provisions; they will receive exemption from the board. I want to ask this question: In any of the so-called civilized countries which have been held up here as examples, is so much confidence placed in certain strata of the people that they are allowed to make such exemptions without the application of a number of provisions? The Opposition told us that they were ashamed to continue with this legislation because it created a lack of confidence, we are giving the impression that we have no confidence in the morals of our own people and that we have to impose all sorts of conditions to keep them in check. More freedom is given in this Bill than has ever been given in any existing law. This freedom of thought, of expression and distribution exists in few countries of the world, if it does exist. Can these provisions be regarded as a curtailment of rights except by people who do not know any better? Not. even the courts will be able to call these persons to account for their actions in connection with publications and other objects.

At this stage I want to direct the attention of hon, members—particularly the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel), who was so concerned about art—to the provisions of Clause 5 (4) (b) (iii), where exemption from the provisions of the proposed Bill is given to any Material from a publication of a technical, scientific or professional nature which is bona fide intended for the advancement of or use in any particular profession or branch of arts, literature or science. The hon. member quoted from Dagbreek of 27 January to illustrate what Mr. Justice Marais was supposed to have said. You know, Mr. Speaker, if I did not have the article in front of me, I would probably have believed the hon. member for Hospital. I want to quote the first sentence. This is what he quoted [Translation]—

He stopped there. Mr. Justice Marais goes on to say [Translation]—

He doubts it himself—

The hon. member went so far as to quote Mr. Justice Marais as an authority to support his standpoint that we are neglecting the artistic and the beautiful, because he made an appeal to the Minister of Education, Arts and Science to ask the Minister of the Interior not to neglect the artistic. I want to say that Mr. Justice Marais most probably had an older and an earlier issue of this legislation….

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

It is not necessary for the hon. member to ask me questions. I am saying precisely what the hon. member said. If he wants to say that it is not true, I will resume my seat so that he can explain, but it is not necessary for him to put a question to me.

Mr. Speaker, that is the point. That is what I want to say.

Order! On what point is the hon. member rising?

Mr. Speaker, the point I am rising on is the statement which the hon. the Minister made to the effect that I deliberately omitted certain words in the statement of Mr. Justice Marais. I have my Hansard here which proves my point. I have it in front of me, Mr. Speaker. And if I may explain it, Sir, I would like to do so. [Interjections.] Here is my Hansard; it can also be compared with what he said on another occasion. I said—

Order!

Mr. Speaker, with respect. I then quoted the one statement which the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, had refused to read. I did not say I was quoting the whole interview.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member whether he quoted from Dagbreek what Justice Marais had said?

Sir, I can only take my stand on Hansard, in which I said that the one statement which the hon. member for Fort Beaufort did not read. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hospital quoted from Dagbreek up to the point which I indicated, and omitted the rest. I call this whole House to witness that he read it from Dagbreek and his Hansard, his original unrevised Hansard, will prove my statement. If the hon. member doubts my word, then you can decide. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may the hon. the Minister insinuate, as he has just done, that the hon. member for Hospital was quoting from a doctored Hansard? [Interjections.]

Order!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister definitely insinuated that the hon. member for Hospital was not quoting the correct Hansard, the original Hansard …

Mr. Speaker, I insinuated nothing. I merely …

On a point of order. The hon. member explained that when he read out the quotation it was one single extract in reply to somebody else. I think his explanation ought to be accepted.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I leave it at that, Sir.

On a point of order, are we not entitled to your ruling?

Order! I have already given my ruling. I gave the hon. member an opportunity to repeat what he had said and he persisted in raising additional points. He abused the opportunity given to him. He must remain seated. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the point of order on which we want your ruling is whether the hon. the Minister is entitled to say what he said, namely, that if the hon. member quoted the original Hansard, before it was changed …

I did not say that.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I said that the hon. member for Hospital quoted from Dagbreek up to a certain point. I read the portion which he omitted. The hon. member objected to that. All I said in that regard was that I left it to you. Mr. Speaker, to decide, if you can get the original Hansard …

[Inaudible.]

… not another Hansard; I said the original— so that you yourself can decide who was right in this connection.

In this regard, in dealing with technical, professional and scientific matters, I just want to say that if any doubt arises about this matter, the courts can decide whether any such object, publication or whatever it may be, is what it professes to be and if it is something artistic, they can make the final decision. Because the provisions of this Bill aim at the combating of undesirable matter and contains a definition of what is undesirable, I can hardly see how art can be affected otherwise by the proposed provision. It is very difficult. Art cannot be defined. I challenge any person to define art. That is why, when a dispute arises as to whether something is artistic or not, the case can only be settled in the courts. I want to tell the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) and the hon. member for Hospital … [Interjections.] The hon. member need not listen. In any event, he will not understand. Let him remain silent. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) is a member who did perhaps contribute something to the debate last night in the last speech from the other side. She asked whether the provisions of the Bill could not be made of retrospective effect, particularly for the protection of collectors, persons and individuals who may have collections at their homes—she even mentioned the home of Cecil Rhodes which might contain something which may be indecent or offensive —so that these persons would be covered. My reply is: We cannot do that. One cannot make this type of law of retrospective effect. If the hon. member thinks about it herself, she will realize how difficult it would be to get hold of all publications which may have slipped through in the past. These provisions can only apply to future developments. Secondly, I want to tell the hon. member that a publication, and therefore a painting as well, and other objects may become undesirable after they have been found to be undesirable by this board which will be appointed and thereafter by a court—or in the case of an offence, only by a court. That may happen. Thirdly, I want to tell the hon. member that if such a publication or object is not distributed or exhibited or shown or sold or offered or kept for sale by a person there is no danger of his being prosecuted. The Bill makes clear provision in this regard. Further protection cannot be offered now. I want to point out to the hon. member that before legal action can be taken the Attorney-General must decide whether such action may be taken. For the rest, the position is precisely the same as under the present law. There is no danger. The present legislation and this legislation which is before the House draw absolutely no distinction in this respect.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude. I say without any fear of contradiction that this Bill will bring about freedom of publication in this country as we have never had it before, a freedom which exists in few countries. It will serve only to combat—as is intended to do—indecency, blasphemy and communistic propaganda which may be harmful to the people. I want to express the hope that with this explanation at their disposal—and I hope hon. members will read it—hon. members opposite who still honour and respect knowledge and reality will be able during the Committee Stage to make a positive contribution towards combating those things which corrupt the moral life of our people.

Question put: That the word “now”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—89: 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.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Ddnges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché!, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; 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.; Sauer, P. 0.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J,; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy J. P.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensurg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Noes—48: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, as this is a non-contentious and agreed measure, I hope that it will not be delayed very long by the House. I tabled a very comprehensive explanatory memorandum. Consequently I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with every clause in detail except Clauses 14 and 16 which deal with the prohibition of strikes and the setting up of amended conciliation machinery.

Clauses 1 and 24 are designed to place an annuitant in the same position as a member in regard to the exercising of the order of preference and secondly, placing an adopted child, who is still a minor at the time of his adopted father's death, in the same position as legitimate minor children.

Clause 2 amends the original Construction Act that was passed some years ago which made provision for the building of a railway line from Germiston and Elsburg to the terminus at Kwesine. The line was authorized by Parliament. The section of line south of Kwesine, will not be required for the next ten or 15 years, as we have been advised by the relevant municipalities, and to enable us to close off the accounts for the section of the line that has been completed, it is felt desirable to amend the original Act in this way.

Clause 3 is designed to allow more flexibility in regard to the fixing of interest rates by the Administration, that is the interest rate on housing loans.

Clause 4 is merely a consequential amendment.

Clause 5 is designed to clarify and confirm a longstanding practice and it also authorizes the sale of intoxicating liquor to Bantu passengers over the age of 18 years travelling on trains to which dining cars are attached.

Clause 6 makes it clear that the Administration is not required to pay any sum to the Treasury in respect of refreshment rooms and trading concessions leased to private persons. Private persons are required by law to obtain the necessary licences.

Clause 7 xx(bis) gives the definition of a “staff association”. Hon. members are probably aware that the Railway staff associations are registered as trade unions in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act. I can also inform the House that the staff associations represent 80 to 90 per cent of the Railway servants.

I think this is a good opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to pay a tribute to the leadership of the staff organizations. I was Minister of Labour for six-and-a-half years, and during that time I came into very close contact with all the trade union leaders in South Africa, and I can assure the House that the leaders of the Railway staff associations are amongst the most competent and responsible leaders of trade unions in the whole of South Africa. They are men who are not only concerned with the welfare of their members, but they also take a lively interest in the welfare of the Railways and regard themselves as partners in this great undertaking. Over the years since I have been Minister I have received the loyalty and support of the leaders of these staff associations. As I say, xx(bis) gives the definition of “staff associations”, namely “an organization, representatives of servants, which in terms of the regulations is officially recognized by the Administration as a staff organization.

(xxx)ter Gives a definition of strike. This has been taken over verbally from the Industrial Conciliation Act.

Clauses 8 to 12 are amendments to the disciplinary code. Among other matters these amendments bring various provisions into line with present practice, they seek to remove anomalies, they seek to simplify the application of the disciplinary procedure and certain new principles are introduced which are in the interest and to the benefit of the staff. A committee was appointed some time ago to enquire into the disciplinary procedure. This committee made quite a comprehensive investigation and made recommendations. These recommendations were submitted to the Federal Consultative Council of Staff Associations and the recommendations have been accepted by the Federal Council. In other words, these amendments have been agreed to by the staff, and, as I say, they are in the interest of the railway servants.

Clauses 11, 14, 18, 20 and 25 deal with the membership of certain statutory bodies, such as the Conciliation Board. Sick Fund Boards, Appeal Boards. Housing Boards, etc. Up to now the practice has been that the representatives of the staff on these Boards, were elected by the Railway servants. All the railway servants in a particular group had the right to vote for a representative on these Boards. Whether they were members of the staff association or not, everyone had the right to vote and any railway servant had the right to nominate another railway servant as a candidate for one of these Boards. These Boards of course consist of an equal number of representatives from the staff and from the Administrations. Representations have been made to me and to my predecessor over many years that instead of the members being elected, the staff associations should have the right to nominate representatives on these Boards. Representations were not accepted in the past, but now where the conciliation machinery is being revised, I thought it well and advisable to accede to this request. Thereby I will strengthen the position of the staff associations, and thereby the staff associations will be able to accept responsibility for decisions taken by their members on these Boards. So the position in future will be that instead of members of these Boards being elected by railway servants, they will be nominated by the staff associations.

Clause 12 is merely an extension of the provision in the principal Act, namely where servants are found under the influence of intoxicating liquor. That is now being extended to cover all servants working on locomotives and engines.

Now I come to Clauses 14 to 17 dealing with the prohibition of strikes and the creation of amended conciliation machinery. I first of all want to say very definitely that I am taking away no rights from the staff. I am merely clarifying the existing position so that there can be no doubt about the position in future. I repeat that I am taking away no rights.

My standpoint has always been that railway servants do not have the right, both legally and morally, to strike. The reasons why I say that are the following: In terms of the Service Act a railway employee must obey instructions, and when a servant either strikes or embarks on a go-slow strike, he disobeys instructions. The management is quite entitled to take steps against such a servant in terms of the disciplinary code, and that servant if found guilty can be either reprimanded, fined, reduced in grade or dismissed from the service. In other words, by striking, the railway servant disregards instructions and because he contravenes that provision of the Service Act, he can be charged and if found guilty be reprimanded, fined, reduced in grade or dismissed from the service. But in the past the management and the Administration have never availed themselves of this procedure. For a very good reason. When a railway servant is charged and punishment is imposed, he has the right of appeal. He can either appeal direct to the Disciplinary Appeal Board, or he can appeal to the head of his department, and if he is not satisfied with the decision he can appeal to the General Manager and thereafter to the Minister and the Railway Board. Now when you deal with individual railway servants that procedure works quite well, but when you have to deal with 10,000 or 12,000 railway servants and each one has to be charged individually, and each one has the right of appeal, either to the Appeal Board or to the Minister eventually, then hon. members will realize that it would probably take three or four years before the matter can be finalized. As a result of that the Administration has never availed itself of the procedure of the disciplinary code in the past when a strike of a large number of servants has taken place.

I also say that morally they do not have the right to strike. Section 46 of the Industrial Conciliation Act deals with workers in essential services and prohibits all workers in essential services from striking. They are subject to compulsory arbitration. “Essential services” are defined as work in regard to the provision of light and water, workers in passenger transport services, in regard to the distribution of food, in regard to the distribution of fuel. Those workers are prohibited from striking. This provision has been on the Statute Book for the past 40 years. It was accepted by the trade unions and was accepted by Parliament and by the country. I was Minister of Labour for 6½ years and I never had one single request from any trade union that this particular provision should be repealed. As I say it was accepted by the trade unions and has been on the Statute Book for the past 40 years. Now I do not think that any hon. member will say that the bus services in Cape Town are more essential than the South African Railways. The whole economy of the country is dependent upon the smooth-working of the South African Railways. Now surely if the workers in the Cape Town bus service are prohibited from striking and are subject to compulsory arbitration, then the railway servants should also be subject to compulsory arbitration and prohibited from striking. I think that has been generally speaking accepted over the years. In spite of the fact that in 1922 we had a general strike of railway workers and over the years there have been one or two go-slow strikes (the 1951 go-slow strike was the last one. and disorganized road, rail and air services for a period of a month), it is generally accepted that railway servants should not strike. I say again that I cannot see how the bus workers in Johannesburg and Cape Town can be prohibited from striking because those bus services are regarded as essential services and that the railway servants can strike because the railway service is not regarded as an essential service.

I might say that we have been very fortunate in South Africa. Comparatively speaking there are few countries in the world which have had so few industrial troubles as South Africa has had over the years which is in a large measure due to responsible trade union leadership and excellent conciliation machinery. We need only look abroad. I think one of the reasons why Britain finds herself in economic difficulties is because the trade unions in Great Britain have got completely out of hand. They periodically hold the whole country up to ransom. I am speaking as a worker and a trade unionist with all the sympathies for the workers, but I say that when trade unions are in a position to hold a country up to ransom, some steps must be taken. That is what happened in Britain. Take the British Railways. They have an accumulated deficit of hundreds of millions of pounds. But what happens? The management of those railways are not even permitted to introduce economy measures; they are not permitted to introduce efficiency measures, because directly they do so, they are threatened with a strike. We have seen during this excessive cold spell they have had in Britain over the past month how certain workers in power stations, which is an essential service, decided to go slow—in other words holding the country up to ransom because they wanted an increase in wages. That is the position in Britain. But we also find in Australia that the workers there, and especially the dockworkers are very strike prone. I want to give hon. members two examples. In one particular case the dock-workers had to load ice-cream on a ship for domestic use on that ship; they demanded a “temptation” allowance. On the threat of a strike, they were paid a temptation allowance. On another occasion they were off-loading toilet pedestals; they demanded an embarrassment allowance, and on the threat of a strike they obtained an embarrassment allowance. Fortunately we have not yet reached that stage in South Africa.

I think this will clarify the position, and now the railway workers will know that they are prohibited from striking. In regard to the strike provisions, I can inform the House that that has been taken over verbally from the Industrial Conciliation Act.

I might also inform hon. members that I had consultations with all the staff organizations in regard to this particular matter and that all the staff organizations accept this provision, namely, the prohibition of strikes. All the staff organizations, without any exception.

Now I want to deal with the new conciliation machinery. First of all, hon. members will see that the Conciliation Board has now been renamed “The Conditions of Employment Advisory Board”. That is done at the request of the staff organizations.

The conciliation machinery on the Railways at present consists of the following: We have a Conciliation Board consisting of an equal number of representatives of management and labour. Matters are referred to the Conciliation Board either by the Minister, at the request of staff organizations, or any grade of servants can circulate a petition and if that petition is signed by one-fifth of the members of that grade requesting that a matter be submitted to the Conciliation Board, it must be so submitted.

Then the staff associations have periodical meetings with the Management and they have periodical meetings with the Minister where all their claims are discussed and agreements are arrived at. There is a further provision in the Service Act, that if there is widespread dissatisfaction amongst a large number of the staff and it is felt that that might have serious repercussions and that it may lead, if it is not solved, to disorganization of the services, then the Minister must report the matter to the State President. The State President then appoints a commission of inquiry, the chairman of which must be a Judge or ex-Judge if he is obtainable, and certain other members. The State President can appoint the other members as he wishes; he is not bound by any provision that he must appoint (a) or (b) or representatives of this group or that group. This commission inquires into the matter and submits recommendations. The Minister must table the report and recommendations. But there is no provision that the recommendations must be implemented. In other words, that commission after an exhaustive inquiry can make certain recommendations and if the Minister so desires those recommendations can merely be shelved and never acted upon. That is the present position. Provision is also made that if the members of the staff circulate a petition and they ask for the appointment of a commission, the State President may appoint a commission. He is not under any compulsion to appoint such a commission. To sum up. A conciliation board, negotiations by the staff organizations with the management and the Minister, and eventually the appointment of a commission of inquiry by the State President if it is a very serious matter affecting a large number of the staff and if it might cause serious disorganization in the Railways. Then the recommendations can be accepted and implemented by the Minister or he can decide not to implement them and he can shelve them. That is the present position.

What I propose to do now is the following: First of all, if there is a dispute between a staff organization and the Minister and that dispute cannot be solved by the Conditions of Employment Advisory Board or otherwise then, unless the Minister is satisfied that it affects only a very small, insignificant number of the staff, the Minister must report to the State President. The State President will then appoint a commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of a Judge or an ex-Judge, and two other persons; one of these persons will be nominated by the staff organizations concerned, and one will be nominated by the Minister. In other words, I am ensuring that the staff will have a representative on this commission of inquiry; the Administration will appoint one, the staff organizations concerned will appoint one member, and the commission of three members will be under the chairmanship of a Judge or former Judge if practicable. This commission will then inquire into the matter, and will submit recommendations, and those recommendations must be accepted and implemented by the Minister. In other words, the Minister cannot shelve the recommendations. Once they have made recommendations and findings, the Minister must accept those recommendations and he must implement them.

Then in a case where the Minister decides not to recommend the appointment of a commission, where he finds that a small and insignificant number of the staff concerned is involved in the dispute, if the staff association concerned feels that the matter is so important that a commission should be appointed, they can circulate a petition among their members and if the majority of those members sign the petition asking for the appointment of a commission, such a commission must be appointed. This is a big improvement on the present position. The staff associations are ensured of representation on the commission and the Minister is compelled to accept the findings and recommendations and he must implement them. This is a quid pro quo for the strike provision clause. In other words, I am bringing the railway servants in line with servants in essential services outside the Railways, making them subject to compulsory arbitration. Those are Clauses 14 to 16, which, as I say, the staff organizations have accepted and are prepared to support. So I hope that hon. members will also support them.

Clause 21 is designed to benefit those members who normally retire at an earlier age than 60 years and who are prematurely retired as a result of ill-health. This is again to the benefit of the staff

Clauses 22, 23 and 26 merely bring into line servants who are forced to resign with servants who are dismissed from the service.

The last clause is Clause 27 which validates certain changes in conditions of employment as set out in the Schedule. As I have said the Bill is quite innocuous and non-contentious and I hope it will have the support of the House.

I am always very suspicious, Mr. Speaker, when hon. the Ministers approach this House in a smiling and confident way with what they call “non-contentious legislation ”. Let me, however, thank this Minister for the patient explanation of his plans and for the White Paper which gave us so much valuable information about the measure before us now.

This Bill, as the Minister has said, makes very many changes in existing laws and regulations and most of them are aimed at streamlining the working and the administration of the Railways in several important aspects, as well as meeting many of the inconveniences and easing many of the difficulties to which the staff, in one form or another, has been subjected. I gather moreover that most of the provisions which are being changed are supported by railwaymen through their staff associations. Many of the amendments do not involve great matters of principle and those can and will be dealt with in committee rather than at this stage of the Bill. We feel that is the proper time and will have what I hope will be valuable suggestions to make in connection with several clauses.

In my opinion the Bill can be divided into three main headings. First, it introduces necessary and, I think, reasonable changes in the disciplinary code applicable to railway servants. It clears up many ambiguities and brings the old Acts up to date. We agree with the Council of the Staff Associations that there have been improvements, and we find them acceptable. Second, it makes advantageous and necessary changes in relation to pensions, which we also approve. In the Committee Stage hon. members will probably have further suggestions to make which I am sure will be interesting to this House. We note that the actuaries are satisfied with the changes which have been made and assure us that no ill-effects will result to the finances of the Superannuation Fund. May I add that I like the idea of placing housing loans on a five-year, average-interest basis. That has been approved by the staff and I think it is a very sensible way of administering interest collections on housing loans. It seems to me that most of this Bill is good and that very little, but a significant little part of it, calls for comment. The basic change I wish to deal with now is the most important object of this Bill, namely to remove the strike weapon from the hands of railwaymen.

Now the Minister asserts that railwaymen never had the right to strike. The Artisan Staff certainly have always been under the impression that they did have it. What is more, over the years they have indulged in various forms of strike without the legality of that action being questioned. They have threatened this very Minister with strike action and on the strength of the threat have won for themselves wage increases. So that they clearly believe they have the right. In the interviews they have given to the Press, following their discussions with the Minister, it is quite clear from their statements that they feel they have given up a powerful weapon which they not only thought they possessed, but which had been acknowledged by practice. The Railway artisans valued their right to strike very much. It is quite clear that they consider that the Minister, as he is very capable of doing, has driven a very hard bargain.

He used the big stick.

No. I will not say that. Although I know he is capable of using the big stick, I do not know enough to say that he used it in these negotiations. It was almost with regret that the trade unions had to admit that they had agreed to the Ministers propositions. They protested that they were losing a valuable right. It is quite clear that they only reluctantly agreed to give up this weapon which they thought they had in their possession. In the White Paper the Minister deals with the strike weapon in deceptively modest words. It says—

As the Minister has pointed out. the key clauses are Clauses 7, and 14 to 16, which, read in conjunction, raise important matters of principle. When the Minister says that this legislation is a non-contentious measure and that all the staff associations have agreed to it, I wonder whether in fact all the alternative possibilities for settlement, including one which I will presently suggest were put clearly and concisely to the Associations, or not. I know that if it were claimed in this House that the Chambers of Commerce or Industry had been consulted on any matter, commercial men and industrialists would deny that such consultation was adequate unless that consultation was complete and thorough. The practice of consultation with these organizations presupposes that they have had the whole Bill placed before them in draft form. They expect to have time to examine it minutely, often together with the public servants who would be in charge of any alterations that might flow from the negotiations. The examination is a patient one and all alternative propositions are canvassed and discussed. I know this because I have served on many of these committees myself over a period of 15 years. Now, was this type of consultation carried out with the staff associations? Did the Minister negotiate with them in this way? The only information I personally have to go on is my talks with certain members of the Staff Association and from Press reports I have seen. From these sources it seems to me that the Minister had planned to remove the right to strike from the artisans whether they liked it or not. The Minister threatened to take away the right to strike this time last year in this House. What I want to know is this. Did he just go to them and say: “I am going to remove this right, but I will give you this and that in its place; I will give you improved negotiating machinery but only on condition that the right to strike is prohibited? Was that the type of “negotiation” indulged in? Or was there really patient consultation in an atmosphere of give and take between both sides? Mr. Speaker, to me the right to strike is a very important one indeed. I think it is one of the most potent and necessary rights that the working man possesses. When the Minister in his definition of a strike makes it so wide that all forms of withdrawal of labour are included we should examine the clause very carefully. According to the wording, the railwaymen are not allowed to refuse to resume work, to refuse to comply with the terms and conditions of their employment, to retard the progress of work, to obstruct work or to break their contract, if the objective is any of the following things: first to force the Administration to agree to their demands concerning terms and conditions of employment; second, to refrain from giving effect to changed conditions of employment; third, to restore the terms and conditions which existed before the change was made …

Do you accept that that definition applies to all outside workers?

Yes, it exactly follows the definition in the Conciliation Act and I accept it, but I will tell you why I think the railway workers are in a slightly different position. It is because they are having their right to strike removed. The outside workers are not so handicapped …

But the outside workers have had it removed already.

… except in essential services. That is the point. The Minister is of opinion that every department of the Railways is an essential service. I admit that many of the railwaymen themselves say that theirs is an essential service, but in relation to a certain section of the service, the Artisan Staff Association for example, is the Minister certain that they are equally as essential as the running staff? …

Of course.

The Minister knows, and the whole history of its existence shows that the artisan staff has been unique in this that they alone had machinery registered in their approved constitution by which they could determine whether or not they should strike. He knows that they have had this power and that they have used it. They had a “go slow” strike in 1945 and won their point in a dispute with the United Party many years ago. They forced the appointment of a judicial commission. under Mr. Justice Grindley-Ferris. The strike weapon was the way they got their way. The Nationalist Party did not then say it was an illegal strike. The United Party did not say that they would take away the workers right to strike in revenge. We did not believe that it was necessary to do so, because the workers had always used that right in a responsible way …

Of course it was very necessary to have it under the United Party.

They threatened to strike under the Nationalist Party last year, unless they got increased wages, and would have done so if the Minister had not yielded. This is what I want to put to the Minister. He remembers the debates we had last year on the workers demand for a wage increase. He refused it adamantly. He was determined that he would not grant increases. We on this side urged that the men had earned them by their long and arduous service. They had transferred a deficit into a surplus. They had not asked for any extra benefits for overtime. They did the best they could as loyal servants to mend the condition of the Railways and make it more healthy financially and more efficient from the running point of view. The Minister refused to grant their claims, and they threatened to strike: 75 per cent of them voted in favour of strike action. Some of them used rather desperate language. One worker said, “Even if the Minister says we have no right to strike, we have that right and we will strike and he cannot put 17,000 people in gaol”. Would the Minister have given in to them if they did not have that right to strike?

I did not give in to them.

Well, they got their way. They got their rise in wages. I suppose he will say that is the way a man gets married; he does not give in but she gets her way. I am convinced that what forced the Minister to give in was the thought that the artisan staff had the right to strike. Or at least the Minister was not certain that they did not have it. They have claimed it since 1925. and the machinery by which they could bring about a strike was recognized and legally registered. I think the Minister should remember that although we regard this new machinery as excellent and as an improvement, and although we think this idea of a compulsory investigation is a great step forward, we still feel that the artisans have been forced to give up very valuable rights. We are certain that this new machinery is bound to result in a quicker settlement of disputes, because of the very fact that an investigation must take place. Previously the Minister has refused to have such investigations even when the workers wanted them. Regardless of the seriousness of a dispute, he has had the right to say “no dispute exists ”. If in his opinion it is not a serious enough matter, he need not, in the past, advised the Governor-General to appoint a Commission. Now he is forced to do so and that is a great improvement. He has increased the number of members of each association from 20 per cent to 50 per cent, who have to petition for a commission. I think that is fair; and I am sure the men agreed to it. The fact, however, remains that an important concession was won by the men, the compulsory investigation. But is it enough? I am just wondering whether the Minister put this proposition to them. Did he, in the case of the artisan staff, suggest to them that this compulsory investigation. plus the retention by them of the right to strike (as they had always had before) would not be an even more effective weapon? Need he have taken this other step of prohibiting strikes? Did he ever discuss that proposition with the artisan staff? Did he ever make that suggestion to them, or did they make it to him?

Surely they are competent to look after their own interests.

Of course they are, but the Minister must realize that he has sometimes led them up the garden path. In fact, the Minister of Information has a publication, the Digest, which praised this Minister and said something like this—

That was high praise indeed from one point of view, but the fact is that the Minister, with his knowledge and background should realize the importance of the right to strike as a principle of trade unionism. He must be aware of the good record of the people from whom he took it away …

But if they are prepared to accept it, why are you concerned about it?

I ask the Minister whether they agreed to it after a proper examination and full consultation. Were any other propositions put to them?

They submitted their own suggestions.

And nobody ever suggested that the right to strike should be retained?

No.

If that is so, why does “Spoorbond” say—

Then he pointed out that in terms of existing staff regulations it was an offence not to carry out an order. “The Minister told the delegation that the Railways were an essential service and that a strike by the railway staff would cause chaos in the country ”… “After Mr. Schoeman’s explanation, the * Spoorbond ’ delegation gave its support to the proposed legislation.” But they clearly had doubts. The Artisan Staff Association thought that the Minister had driven a hard bargain. The report said—

That is their complaint—

Of course, you do not agree with any of them.

This is what they went on to say—

In other words, they still would have preferred not to have this right removed. Surely the Minister cannot deny that.

No, I do not deny it, but the point is that they accepted it.

They have submitted.

That is precisely my point, and I am glad that the Minister has made it for me. They did not want the right to strike removed. I think myself that he made up his mind last year, particularly in connection with the Artisan Staff Association, to remove the right to strike. That is the right which gives a trade union teeth in its collective bargaining. He has extracted those teeth. I do not say that he has given them false teeth in exchange. He has given them something they can use and it is for this House to decide whether by taking away the right they had to strike and substituting for it compulsory arbitration, he has in fact given them an adequate quid pro quo. The Executive of the A.S.A. believe they have a good substitute, according to the Minister. We have not yet heard the men putting their point of view. They may well think that their Executive made the best of a bad bargain.

At this stage I want to ask the Minister something else. This legislation comes before us to-day. The Minister knows that in March the Artisan Staff Association are having their annual congress and Mr. Liebenberg has indicated that this removal of the right to strike and the substitution therefor of compulsory arbitration will then be discussed by the Artisan Staff. Now that would be an occasion on which Parliament and the public could hear public debate of the whole question and learn all the facts; we could hear the men’s point of view, as we have now heard the Minister’s point of view. We have only had the other side put to us by hearsay. We would have it in actual fact. After hearing the public discussions between the railwaymen I think we could judge more clearly between the two sides. The staff may have other suggestions to make. I do not know. I do not pretend to be an expert on this matter. I regard Parliament in this instance, as being almost in the position of judging between two contestants. The Artisan Staff Association claims they have the right to strike. The Minister says they have not, and he will fix it. They threaten to strike and the Minister says, “I will fix you”, and here he tries to. I ask the Minister, in order to be able to judge fairly, should we not have all the facts from both sides so that we can judge what the different sides want in this dispute? It may be that they will come up with exactly this same sort of machinery. I do not know, but will it not hinder us to delay and have this Bill read in two months’ time? No strike is threatened. All the railwaymen have just had an increase in wages. They are well on the way to a big surplus and everything is rosy in the garden. Why is this hurried through now?

Do you regard the passenger bus service in Cape Town as a more essential service than the Railways?

That is quite irrelevant to what I was saying but I will reply. No, but there are several differences. It is very difficult to tell exactly what sections of public transport are actually essential. Some differ from others. For instance, the ex-Minister of Transport, Mr. Sauer, actually said that the railway catering services were not essential services and he was right. So there is a part of the Railways which is not considered essential. I concede that the running staff is essential and that anything which would immediately incommode the transport of goods or persons or foodstuffs is serious and as such it is an essential service. But there are certain aspects of the railway service that would not do so. There would be time to have a dispute and time to negotiate and cool off while going through the ordinary conciliation machinery and come to a settlement before vital communications were effected. And do not forget this, that even if the artisans did strike and the public were inconvenienced there would be an immediate public reaction against them if they were in the wrong. If a clothing factory strikes, nobody thinks they will go naked and the public do not take a serious view of it. But in a transport strike the public would be immediately incommoded and the rights or wrongs of the dispute would be immediately brought to the attention of the public. No body of public servants would dare to worsen their case if it were bad, in the eyes of the general public in that way. I am conscious of the fact that the railway service is in a special category. Railway servants have great protections. They are not like the ordinary workers. Their conditions of service are guaranteed. They cannot be dispensed with just at any moment if it suits the employer to cut staff. But the Minister should remember this: if you take away a worker’s right to strike, you must substitute something for it that is equally potent. Has the Minister done that? That is the point. Nobody, whether he works in an essential service or not, should ever be placed in the position where he can be victimized by the employer. In the same way no worker in an essential industry should ever be able to hold the public or the State up to ransom. But we in this House have to try to hold the balance equally between these two contesting interests and we have to approach the matter as objectively as we can. Finally I ask the Minister to answer, honestly, this one question: Is he certain, and are the men certain, that this right to strike—which rightly or wrongly they thought they possessed —has been replaced by an equally good weapon? Is the quid pro quo which the Minister has given to them equally powerful? Does it ensure that the workers cannot be victimized; that in future they can put forward their just claims for improvements and increases in wages with the same force and potency that they could before? If I can get an answer, both from the men and the Minister, that this is so I will be satisfied with this legislation. I hope the Minister will think the matter over seriously. That is the main comment I have to make on this Bill. The other amendments we all welcome. We will try to improve what is already good in the Committee Stage. I hope that the Minister in his reply will satisfy me by giving a more convincing picture than he did in his introductory remarks of the consultations that have gone on between himself and the staff associations before getting their agreement to this legislation, in its present form. I hope he will be able to say with complete candour that in every respect and in all aspects the railwaymen have not only been adequately consulted but that they have entirely agreed with the Bill presently before us, and especially whether or not they willingly surrendered the right to strike.

During the past ten years I have seen how the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) acts in this House, but I have never known him to be in greater difficulty than this afternoon. I have never known him to find it as difficult to state a case as he did this afternoon, and I think he will be the first to admit that.

It was interesting to see how the hon. member for Wynberg tried to find a reason why the staff associations had come to a stage where they had accepted and admitted the fact that they should not be allowed to strike on the Railways. At one stage—and this is saying a great deal for the hon. member for Wynberg— he was prepared to admit that the reason for that was to be found in the personal ability of the Minister to handle the staff effectively. The hon. member was in a difficult position, but I just want to say this to him, that I think the simple fact of the matter is, and he will have to admit it, that the staff associations have agreed and that they approve of this measure.

As far as I am concerned this Bill has three characteristics. In the first place the object of this measure is to state clearly what the position is in respect of a number of matters in regard to which there was or may be uncertainty. As example I can refer to the provisions of the Disciplinary Code. The object is to clarify those provisions which lend themselves to misunderstanding or misinterpretation and to eliminate irregularities and thus simplify the Disciplinary Code. Thus Clause 8 (b), which amends Section 18 (5) on the principal Act, does not deal at all with the principles contained in the provision dealing with departmental contraventions and criminal prosecutions, but it only tries to eliminate the confusion which existed in this connection. Secondly greater concessions are conferred upon the staff in this Bill. Clause 8 (b) adds a new subsection to Section 18 of the principal Act which will enable the Railway Administration to give an employee, when disciplinary or criminal action is pending against him, the choice of taking a job in a lower grade at less remuneration instead of being suspended. In other words, whereas the position to-day is that an employee may be suspended as an employee, he will in future only be suspended in his grade and in the meantime he will be allowed to work in a lower paid grade until the disciplinary or criminal case against him has been finalized. That will, therefore, prevent an employee and his family from suffering want while a case is pending against him. That is to be welcomed. I also think the fact that for the first time since 1925, except for a few amendments in 1960, there has been a general smartening up of the Disciplinary Code, will be welcomed in all quarters. That was a matter in regard to which it was felt for some time that certain shortcomings had developed and that it was necessary to remedy those. As the hon. the Minister explained the matter was referred to a committee; this committee submitted a report and the Federal Consultative Board of the Staff Associations of the S.A. Railways accepted its recommendations. Because the matter had been thoroughly considered and because there had been negotiations I think the House as a whole will not only welcome these amendments but will also support them, as the hon. member for Wynberg rightly said. A third characteristic of this amending measure is that this Bill contains very few new principles. One new principle is this that in future the representatives of the staff serving on departmental boards and committees will no longer be elected by the staff but will be nominated to them by the staff associations. I honestly have to admit that I personally am not very happy about this amendment. To me it savours of a departure from the recognized and sound democratic principle that the voice of the people is supreme. On the other hand a very strong case could probably be made out for it that they should be staff members of the staff associations so as to ensure that in this way that they will at least have a say, even though it is only an indirect say, in the nomination of members to these boards and committees. Another consideration which we, of course, cannot lose sight of, is the fact that out of a total of 107, 398 White employees who can join the staff associations, 78, 469 are already members of the staff associations of the Railways. Those staff members who can belong to the staff associations, therefore, constitute a definite and overwhelming majority. I take it that the staff associations insisted on this amendment and that they were probably to a very large extent justified in doing so, particularly where experience has shown, as is evident from the explanatory memorandum, that the majority of candidates who are supported by the staff associations are usually elected and elected unopposed in most cases. For these reasons and also because it will eliminate the great amount of work and expense connected with these elections, I am prepared to accept the position although I did not feel too happy about it at the beginning.

The hon. member for Wynberg doubted whether the S.A. Railways should be regarded as an essential service in comparison with those services which are regarded as such in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act.

All its branches.

Yes. This Bill states it clearly and places it beyond any doubt that the staff of the Railway service is not allowed to strike. The Minister rightly pointed out that it was always his attitude that railwaymen did not have the right to strike because Section 46 of the Industrial Conciliation Act laid down that all workers in essential services were prohibited from striking. If the transport services of a local authority, of a municipality or of a private concern are regarded as essential services I think it is logical and obvious that the largest transport undertaking in the country, namely the Railways, cannot be regarded as anything else but an essential service. Any transport service which is limited to a local area can cause disruption in the event of the transportation staff striking but they can only cause disruption in that very limited area, such a small limited area that it practically need not cause any economic disruption. But if a strike on the part of the Railway staff brings the trains to a halt and paralyses the transport system of the Railways, it is not only the passenger service which is paralysed, but it can disrupt the whole economy of the country because of the fact that goods and products cannot be conveyed. When we think of the great service which the S.A. Railways renders to trade, to industry and to agriculture, we realize what disastrous effects it can have on our industrial and economic development if the trains are brought to a halt by a strike on the part of the Railway staff. I think, therefore, that the hon. the Minister is correct in adopting the attitude that the Railways perform one of the most essential services in the country. When we go into the history of the S.A. Railways we find that strikes are really something foreign in our entire Railway system. Since the inception of the S.A. Railways to date there have only been 18 strikes, nine strikes amongst the White staff and nine strikes amongst the non-White staff. All those strikes were, however, limited to a negligible percentage of the staff, and in most cases they were limited to certain areas only. Except for the strikes amongst the White staff in 1922, 1950 and 1962, the strikes of 1914, 1919, 1920, 1934, 1947 and 1951 were all limited to the mechanical workshops, while the strikes of 1919 and 1934 were confined to the workshops at Pretoria alone. The strike of 1922 by the White staff was in sympathy with the workers who went on strike in the coal and gold mines; the 1950 strike was limited to Danskraal only and the 1962 strike was limited to the artisan staff of the Airways. All the strikes amongst the non-White staff were in the main amongst the dock-workers at Port Elizabeth, Durban and East London. I think, therefore, that I am very justified in saying that strikes are something foreign to amongst the Railway staff and that they have indeed very seldom resorted to this weapon. It proves further that there exist sufficient and effective means and avenues in the Railway service, means and avenues which have been created from time to time, whereby disputes can be settled by means of negotiation. There is no necessity therefore, for the Railway staff to resort to the strike weapon. As a matter of fact, at the present moment our system of reconciliation in South Africa has developed to such an extent, has been planned so thoroughly, and has so effectively been embodied in legislation, that the strike weapon has to a very great extent completely lost its value. Further more there are such effective legal weapons and such excellent opportunities for negotiation in the Railway service for the staff that the necessity of the strike weapon has disappeared completely. As the Minister has pointed out, in this very Bill provision is made for even greater arbitration rights and better weapons are even placed in the hands of the Railway staff. Here I refer to Clause 15 of the Bill. As the Minister has pointed out, provision is made here that in the event of representations by any staff group via their staff association fail, the majority of the staff group which is concerned in the dispute can request the State President to appoint a commission to investigate the cause of the dispute and to make recommendations. The present position is, of course—and it is in this regard that this Bill brings about such a very important change—that any staff group has the right to ask for such a commission but to-day it can be refused and if such a request were acceded to and a commission appointed and it made certain recommendations the Minister could ignore those recommendations. But provision is now made in this Bill— and this is the important difference—that if the appointment of such a commission is requested the request must be acceded to and the commission’s recommendations must be carried out. This amendment, therefore, provides the staff with yet another and very effective additional weapon, a weapon which they do not have at the present moment. If they have a case which they can justify and it is properly investigated by such a commission, they can in this way get the Minister and the Administration to change their views and force them to make concessions. I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Wynberg has returned. I should like to have his attention for a moment. I am somewhat surprised at the attitude which the hon. member for Wynberg adopted this afternoon towards strikes. He adopted the attitude that the Railway staff should not be deprived of the strike weapon.

Unless another equally effective weapon is substituted for it.

I have already indicated the great concession which the hon. the Minister is giving in Clause 15 and that when a staff group has a justifiable case, they can force the Minister to make certain concessions. I maintain that the hon. member for Wynberg has all along adopted the attitude that the railway staff may not strike. When did the hon. member change his attitude? He has had a great deal to say lately about conflicting statements on the part of Government members. I want to say to him that if you live in a glass house you must not throw stones. Can the hon. member tell us when he changed his attitude? Since when has he adopted the attitude that the right to strike is indeed a right which the railway staff have? I want to refer the hon. member to an interjection which he made last year. When the hon. the Minister of Transport spoke about strikes in this House last year he said the following, inter alia—

The hon. member for Wynberg then made the following remark—

What is wrong with that?

What can be more clear than this admission on the part of the hon. member that the law prohibits any form of strike on the part of the railway staff?

It is just the opposite. I said that the Minister should not misuse the law.

Let me put it to the hon. member again: The Minister comes along and says that railwaymen have not got the right to strike, whether it be a go-slow strike or any other kind of strike and to that the hon. member for Wynberg says to the Minister: But you must not misuse the law against them. What else is it than an admission by the hon. member that the railway staff do not possess the strike weapon.

Give us a better argument.

No, there is no better example. If there is any doubt as to whether Section 46 of the Industrial Conciliation Act does indeed apply to the Railway staff, in so far as it concerns essential services, surely there can be no doubt as to the force and the power of Staff Service Regulation No. 13 of which sub-section (4) reads as follows—

How can a railway official take part in a strike in view of these staff regulations which apply to every member of the Railways? Surely it is as clear as daylight and it should be clear to the hon. member. I want to say clearly that I think the hon. member for Wynberg found it difficult to-day to make out a case for the strike weapon. As the Minister said. I think we must accept that the staff associations on their own accord accepted that the staff of the S.A. Railways could not be allowed to possess the strike weapon and I think that if we accept there ought to be no further discussion on or opposition to this amending measure.

I agree with a great deal of what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) has said, particularly when he paid tribute to the Administration for Clauses 14 and 15 of this Bill which creates improved reconciliation machinery in the interests of the Administration as such. But I am sorry that he did not adopt an equally definite attitude in regard to Clause 16. I am particularly sorry that he was critical of my hon. friend, the member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) at the beginning of his speech, not because the hon. member for Wynberg had attacked the Minister but because he had concentrated on eliciting further information from the Minister.

I was not critical. I sympathized with him.

My hon. friend’s choice of words does not alter my objection to his attitude, namely that he does not want to realize that where the hon. member for Wynberg spoke on behalf of the official Opposition, he was acting in a very responsible manner; that he accepted the bona fides of the Minister but only asked for certain assurances in the interests of the railway employees. I want to say at once that the Opposition supports practically everything in this Bill, except for the fact that we are concerned about Clause 16 which deprives the railway employees of the right to strike. We know that the Minister does not agree with us in that regard. I say Clause 16 takes that right away; the Minister contends that that right never existed. I submit to the Minister that it is a recognized fact that the right to strike does indeed exist. Whatever the strict legal interpretation may be, it is a fact that the artisans staff association in particular had that right. The procedure to be followed to call out a strike and how they should set about it to get 75 per cent of their members to vote in favour of a strike, is laid down in the constitution of that staff association and that constitution is registered with the Industrial Registrar and it was registered in 1925 when the Nationalist Party under General Hertzog was in power and the action of the Industrial Registrar in 1925 has never yet been questioned. As the hon. member for Wynberg has said, the artisan staff association has on more than one occasion exercised that right which is embodied in their constitution or threatened to exercise it, or bared their teeth as any trade union is entitled to do as long as it has the right to strike. The hon. member for Wynberg rightly pointed out that there was a strike in 1945 against the administration of the late Mr. Sturrock. The artisans won that strike. They insisted upon the appointment of a judicial commission; it was appointed under Judge Grindley Ferris; the Judge said that the artisans were in the right and the Administration accepted it. In view of those precedents, can the Minister really still base his policy on the allegation that the personnel of the Railways have not had the right to strike up to the present? I do not think he can do it. I wish to express my personal regret for the fact that this hon. Minister has yielded to the temptation which has become irresistible to most of his colleagues, and that is that whenever legislation is introduced into this House, there must be something or other in that legislation which curtails the rights of South Africans. Once before when the hon. the Minister was Minister of Labour he introduced a very important piece of legislation into this House. It dealt with the settlement of disputes in which the Native employees in our industries were concerned and I still remember with gratitude how responsibly the Minister acted at the time and how he set an example to his fellow members in the Cabinet.

You agreed that Natives should not be allowed to strike.

That is laid down in an Act of ours. In terms of the definitions of the Industrial Conciliation Act a Native is not recognized as a worker.

On that occasion you voted for it that a Native may not strike. You were not concerned at that time about the right to strike.

Our attitude on that occasion was very clear and the Minister is now splitting hairs. We have always said that we did not believe that Natives, most of whom were still tribal Natives and had no knowledge or experience of industrial conciliation or industrial negotiations and of the machinery for the settlement of industrial disputes, should have the right to strike. It is ridiculous for the Minister to make the comparison. The two are completely incomparable. How can the Minister compare the right of primitive Natives to strike with the right to strike of the artisans in the Railway service? [Interjections.] I take it that the Minister is not serious. He thought he had raised a clever little debating point. I think he is sorry that he made that interjection. [Interjections.] I wish the hon. the Minister would approach this matter in the spirit in which we approach it. The Minister did not prohibit Natives in that legislation from forming trade unions. That was not his object. His object was to disarm the Native trade unions but he did not prohibit them. He undertook a positive task and he created other machinery for the settlement of disputes in which Natives were concerned—good machinery—and we supported him. Our attitude was this: Let the two systems work against each other and if the machinery of the Minister is the better the Native trade unions will automatically be disarmed. Why does the Minister refuse to adopt the same attitude in this case? It is understandable that he wishes to avoid strikes on the SA. Railways. That is a commendable motive, but he creates infinitely better reconciliation machinery in Clauses 14 and 15. I agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) that in view of that machinery strikes will be very improbable. I personally do not see—with one qualification which I shall mention in a moment—how, once the machinery in Clauses 14 and 15 has been set in motion and an impartial judgment has been given in the matter concerned in the dispute, any trade union can still hope, firstly, as in the case of the artisan staff association of Iscor, to get 75 per cent of its members to support a strike action and secondly, how any trade union, although it may get it, can expect any sympathy from the public or from this Parliament. Only if the board appointed by the State President acts irresponsibly and immorally will it be possible for a trade union to justify a strike against the findings of that board. The only qualification which I want to state immediately is this: I notice that two of the members of such a board to be appointed by the State President will be appointed on the recommendation of the Cabinet and only one on the recommendation of the railway workers. I hope the Minister will revise that and that he will accept a clause similar to the one contained in Section 45 (4), I think, of the Industrial Conciliation Act, where the referee, the chairman, must be appointed by a majority of the workers and employers. I think both sides must feel that confidence reposes in the person appointed as chairman, the referee, and that he was appointed with the approval of and according to the wishes of the two parties concerned. I think that will be a great improvement to this Bill. However, I have confidence in the machinery which is created in Clauses 14 and 15 and the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) has confidence in it. Why does the Minister want to introduce a measure to do away with the right to strike if there is a good chance, an absolute chance, that we will never again have strikes as long as the staff associations on the S.A. Railways are responsible?

It is possible that the United Party may one day come into power and then we will have strikes.

The United Party was in power for many years and the United Party experienced difficulties with the staff associations but they never found it necessary to come forward with legislation to take away that right to strike from the employees. It had to be a brilliant Nationalist Party administration to find that necessary. Do not tell me that the hon. the Minister is so sure of it that he is going to come to a fall within the next year that he is already introducing precautionary measures to prevent the next United Party Government from having trouble on the Railways, because that is the argument of the hon. member for Pretoria (District). I think he too is sorry for having said such a stupid thing.

There is one other matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister and that is that we should not argue that because the Railways are a State undertaking the workers may not strike. I wish to suggest that because the Railways are a State undertaking we should be even more careful when it comes to curtailing the right of the railway workers to strike than we would be in the case of private undertakings. The Railways cannot be compared with the Civil Service. It can be compared with the Post Office Service to some extent. We know that a strong feeling exists in the Post office to-day to strike although it will be illegal. I hope that does not happen. The South Africa Act which controls the Railways lays down that the S.A. Railways should not be conducted as part of the Civil Service, but that it should be conducted as a business undertaking. But it is a business undertaking which is in this peculiar position that its head is also a member of the Cabinet, that its head also has the authority of the Government, the Cabinet, in his attitude towards his employees. The danger always exists that when the State runs a business it wants to refuse the employees in that business undertaking the rights which are given to employees in private undertakings. The inclination is there to regard any action which the employees may take in the business undertaking against their employers as action against the State and therefore as an act of disloyalty. That is why the first thing which any communist party does when it takes over the government of a State, is to abolish the right to strike completely, no matter how euphemistically it is worded. In practice that right disappears because any strike in a community in which all the means of production belong to the State is not only action against the employer but action against the State—disloyalty. You find the same tendency in a socialistic state, but South Africa is not as yet a socialistic state. Nor do we want to create the impression that ours is a socialistic state. The Minister has extraordinary powers. He has greater powers over his employees than any other employer has over his employees. He also has the power which vests in him as a member of the Cabinet of the Government of the country. That is why he should be particularly jealous in guarding the rights of his employees and not curtail them. I wish to pay tribute to the Minister; it is not easy for me to do so. I wish to pay tribute to the Minister for the contents of Clauses 14 and 15. I think this is something which will bring about a revolution in the lives of the railway employees. We know that under Section 45 of the Industrial Conciliation Act we have had peace in South Africa since 1924 when General Smuts introduced that Act or shall I rather say since October 1924 when the Act was promulgated; incomparable peace. There are many other countries which do not have such legislation. Clauses 14 and 15 of this Bill are similar to Section 45 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, with this one difference that the Administration is obliged to accept the findings of the conciliation board. I do not think that is necessary. I think that the decision of such a board appointed by the State President will command such persuasive authority that it is unnecessary either to place that obligation on the Administration or to deprive the employees of their right to strike. It will work because you are dealing with responsible people. Please, Mr. Speaker, do not let us once again do something to-day which will give the impression that all we do in this Parliament of South Africa is to curtail the rights of citizens; all that we can do in this Parliament of South Africa is to act in a negative and reactionary manner. Let us show, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister has already shown in his handling of Native Affairs, that we can create constructive machinery in the interests of our citizens, machinery which makes such things as strikes unnecessary and which also makes it unnecessary for us to curtail the rights of our citizens.

I am glad that the Opposition is accepting practically all the clauses of this Bill. We now hear from the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) that the strike clause is the one about which the Opposition is most concerned. The hon. member for Wynberg tries to make us believe that the present Minister of Railways understands the knack of persuading the servants of the Railways to do something which he wants them to do. That was how I understood him. I just want to say to the hon. member for Wynberg that that was not at all what happened in this case. The Railway workers of the S.A. Railways have confidence in the present Minister. They know that he does not only look after the interests of the Railway Administration but that he has shown that he is really interested in the personnel of the Railways. That is why they trust him. I can assure the hon. member for Wynberg this afternoon that the president of the artisans union, Mr. Liebenberg, is not somebody whom you can easily persuade to do something simply because you want him to do it. We know that from experience. We know that he is a competent person; we know that he fights for the interests of his staff. Mr. Liebenberg agreed that they would abide by the decision of the Minister. I should like the hon. member for Wynberg to listen to this. I want to quote from the Rand Daily Mail of 25 January where Mr. Liebenberg himself said that they were satisfied. I quote—

He says that himself and why does he say that? Because it was not a case of something having been forced on to them; the negotiations were conducted on a mutual basis between the Minister and the staff association. Do not think for a moment, Sir, that it was only the staff association which had to make concessions. What about the important concessions which the Minister had to make? He had to agree to it that an impartial commission would be appointed by the State President when a deadlock was reached in connection with a matter where the Minister and the staff association could not come to an agreement. The Minister of Railways must then accept the findings of that commission; he has to give in. In other words he has to concede 50 per cent and the staff must concede 50 per cent as well. If that commission finds in favour of the Railway staff, although it is against the wishes of the Minister and the Administration, the Minister must make the concession. I take it that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) is an advocate! I take it that if the Minister has to yield anything against his will it is obvious that on occasions the staff will also have to yield and that they should not in that event resort to the strike weapon thus disrupting the entire railway system.

The hon. member for Wynberg said something very peculiar; something important which I thought he, as a responsible person, should not really have said so easily. He says the right to strike is a right which every trade union must and may possess, if I understood him correctly. It is practically a right of which he cannot be deprived. In this instance the hon. member for Wynberg feels that the Minister is unfair towards the railway workers in taking the right to strike away from them.

You are dealing with half my argument; he can force them just as little.

Mr. Liebenberg himself said that because the possibility of a dead lock no longer existed, the necessity to strike had fallen away.

He said other things as well.

That was what Mr. Liebenberg said according to this report. I think the hon. member for Wynberg said another irresponsible thing. If the United Party should ever come into power I think the hon. member for Wynberg will be the next Minister of Railways. He now makes this final plea. He tells the Minister that he will be quite satisfied on condition that the Minister withdraws this Bill and re-introduces it after the congress of the artisans staff association has been held in two months’ time. I ask you, Mr. Speaker! The president of the artisans staff association may be a very responsible person; the management of that association consist of responsible men, but some of the members of that trade union are perhaps not all such responsible people, people who may perhaps in the intervening period between now and the congress exert great pressure on the management of the trade union—particularly encouraged and prodded by the Opposition—that they should insist on the right to strike. If there is anything which is irresponsible and which causes disruption in any country in the world it is a strike. It is a pity that differences cannot be settled peacefully between employers and employees particularly on the Railways. You need only think about the serious disruption which the strikes are causing in England. The Minister has pointed out that during a period when they are experiencing abnormal climatic conditions the railway officials are striking in England. Does the hon. member for Wynberg wish that to happen in South Africa, that the country should be disrupted? I honestly think that if the Opposition has the ability to grasp anything they ought to accept what the Minister has said namely that the staff association has accepted this Clause and that they will realize that the necessity to strike no longer exists. The Minister also pointed out that according to the staff regulations, regulation No. 13/4 a railway servant may not strike. In terms of this regulation a railway servant must be (a) obedient to all persons placed in authority over him and (b) must not disobey or disregard a lawful order given to him by competent authority or be negligent or indolent in the execution of his duty. The hon. member now says that these service regulations were drafted in 1925 at a time when the National Party was in power. But these staff regulations were revised in July, 1937. They were published in the Government Gazette No. 951 of 1937 and the new regulations came into force in August, 1937. This clause which deals with servants who may not refuse work has been taken over word for word from those regulations. If the hon. member for Wynberg feels that a servant should have the right to refuse work why did the United Party not rectify the position during their regime? But I leave it at that. I am convinced that the Opposition will also have to yield in this matter because they will become convinced that the railway officials are quite satisfied and that there is no difficulty as far as they are concerned.

I want to thank the Minister this afternoon especially for the changes in regard to the service regulations of the Railways. I specially want to express my gratitude in connection with Clause 1 (a) and (b); particularly (b). The change is to this effect that in cases where a railway employee has an adopted child, has legally adopted the child, the Department will in future regard that child as one of his own children and in future that child will share the rights of the other children equally with them. The position was very unfair in the past. I have had cases in my own constituency where railway employees had adopted such children, where they had regarded those children as their own children yet the position was that after the death of the railway employee those children did not enjoy the same privileges as the other minor children.

I also wish to point out that during the years that the hon. the Minister has been in charge of the Railways he has in every respect, fulfilled all his promises to the railway workers. When he took over he said very clearly that he regarded the railwaymen as his partners. That is the secret why he gets the very good service from them which he does get to-day. He also promised them that when, with their assistance and with good administration, the Railways showed a profit, they would share in those profits. We saw it not long ago that the Minister handed over R21,000,000 of the profits of the Railways to the railway employees.

After they had threatened to strike.

They did not threaten to strike. The hon. member for Wynberg also said that the hon. the Minister has refused to listen to the artisans staff association. What the Minister in actual fact did say was that he refused to give an increase to one group of railway employees. If an increase had to be given he would give it to all the various groups on the Railways. And that is what the Minister has done. I think the railway employees are very grateful, because now for the first time their salaries have been properly adjusted according to the value of every grade on the Railways.

I can assure the hon. member for Wynberg that the railway employees are as loyal to the Minister as they are because they know that he looks after their interests, that even though they should have the right to strike they will never exercise that right but that on the contrary they will support their Minister 100 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the plea made by the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel). I do not want to deal with the case which he put to the House but I think he made one point which we cannot allow to pass unnoticed. I refer to the kind of rhetorical question which he put to the House implying that this side of the House wanted disruption in South Africa because we had aired a few thoughts favourable to the principle of strikes. As a good South African, I think the hon. member ought to know that this side of the House are as anxious as any hon. member on his side that the country should not be disrupted. I say this with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think it behoves the hon. member to put that kind of question to this House.

I wish to say a few words in connection with the amendments to the so-called disciplinary code. I am pleased about one amendment in particular and that is that where people are suspended from service it will no longer be necessary for them to lose their salary and to sit at home, but that they will be able to continue to work, even though it is for a smaller salary. I am pleased about that because I know of railwaymen who have suffered greatly as a result of this. We are pleased that this matter has now been put right. A great number of amendments are of course being effected. Time will show us whether all these changes are improvements, but at a cursory glance it seems as if most of them ought to improve the position considerably.

As far as the question of strikes is concerned, I agree that it is a far-reaching change. I ask myself the question why should the hon. the Minister so suddenly come forward with this question of strikes, except for his remarks last year. You naturally look for reasons, Sir. The railwayman certainly did not ask for it. The hon. the Minister admitted this afternoon that they agreed that the right to strike should be taken away, but that they wanted to retain it. That was what the hon. the Minister told us. It cannot be, therefore, that they asked for its removal. There may be other reasons. Can we perhaps allege that the railwayman has used the strike weapon recklessly in the past? I do not think we can say that. Nor do I think we can say that they have used it injudiciously and that the interests of the country have suffered as a result. Why is it taken away then? We heard all these eulogies this afternoon about the railwayman, particularly as regards his sense of responsibility towards South Africa. I am pleased to be able to say that it is a sense of responsibility which practically every worker in the country possesses, particularly when we look at the history of our country as far as strikes are concerned. I think we ought to be proud of the sense of responsibility of our workers. I can think of no other reason than that the hon. the Minister simply wished to give shape to his own ideas in this connection. We remember what he said last year: Look, those people do not have the right to strike. The Minister has now converted that idea of his into legal language and he says: Thus far and no further. On what does he base his case this afternoon? In the first instance he said that the people did not have the right to strike, either morally or legally. Let us leave the moral aspect aside for a moment. Nor do I wish to argue the legal aspect. The fact remains, however, as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has said, that facts have already proved that they had that right. They have already used it in the past and they were not forbidden to do so. The hon. the Minister made a further point. He says we are dealing with essential services and as is the case in the industrial world, these people should not have the right either to call out a strike, because, says he, the industrial worker who performs an essential service and who may not strike, is in exactly the same position as the railwayman because the Railways also perform an essential service. I do not want to argue the question as to whether it is an essential service or not. But I want to take up the point raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. I want to say this: In my humble opinion there is nevertheless a real difference between the railwayman and the industrial worker. I say that because I myself was and still am a worker. I know how those people regard this matter. You have the worker on the one hand and his employer on the other hand. Suddenly a dispute arises which has to be settled and no settlement can be arrived at. The Industrial Conciliation Act creates the machinery. But while the employer and the employee negotiate, perhaps they find a solution and perhaps not, a third figure appears on the scene, a figure which acts as referee namely the state. I want to say this to you, Mr. Speaker, that the worker has confidence in this referee. They have confidence in him because throughout the years he has provided them with a measure of safety and security and because the referee, the state, is there to see to it that the employer and the employee become reconciled and if they do not, the employee will at least not be in the position where the employer will be able to exploit him. I want to say at once that that is certainly not the position of the railwayman. In theory his position may be the same but in reality it is different. You have the railwayman on the one hand and his employer, the Railway Administration, on the other hand. Where is the referee if something has to be settled? The referee is supposed to be the state. But surely we know that in practice, the employer, in the case of the railwayman, has tremendous influence with the state, the referee. That makes a big difference, Mr. Speaker. I do not have the hon. the Minister in mind as he is sitting over there, but I am outlining the position as I have come across it in practice. I have in mind the fact that the Minister of Railways is in the Cabinet and that all the decisions made by the Cabinet go to the State President. The decisions which are taken there are conveyed to the worker. I ask myself this question: If the Minister of Railways do not want anything done, will he really be persuaded by his Cabinet to do it? I cannot accept that, Mr. Speaker. That is why I say that in practice the position to me seems to be that as far as the Railways are concerned, the idea of a referee is absent, whereas that idea is very real in the case of the industrial worker. I think, therefore, in all humility that the hon. the Minister is wrong when he says that the right to strike should be taken away from the railwayman because it has been taken away from the industrial worker. I do not think that is right.

The conclusion to which I come is that the railway worker and the industrial worker should be placed in two separate categories and although the industrial workers who perform essential services have been deprived of the right to strike, I do not think it is wise at this particular stage to deprive the railwayman of that particular right. I think the conciliation machinery which is created in this Bill which is before us is very good and that it is definitely an improvement on what we had in the past. I consequently ask myself the question whether the hon. the Minister will not perhaps agree to it that, with the exception of the provision that the decision of the commission must be accepted, we first give the new machinery a chance. In other words, what I plead for is that the new conciliation machinery which is created, should indeed contain the element that it is compulsory to investigate those differences which crop up, but leave it just at that and let us see what the result will be. As I have already said, the railwayman has shown us in the past that he is exceedingly responsible and I believe that if a commission is appointed to investigate a matter and to make the facts known to the public, the railwayman will think twice before taking a step which he knows will incite public opinion as a whole against him. He will not do it. I want to put it this way: the word “strike” leaves a bad taste in the mouths of us who are sitting in this House, separated from reality outside. We always see the extreme side of a strike, its worst side. But as far as the worker is concerned, the worker who finds himself in a position where he does not know where to turn to, where his employer simply refuses to listen to him, where nothing is done for him, the fact that he can strike as an ultimate step, is to my mind exceptionally good. I am also pleased to be able to say that, thanks to our excellent conciliation legislation, the worker of South Africa will probably never find himself in that position, but do not let us destroy that important principle at this stage already. You have changed the machinery of reconciliation, changed it drastically. I think particularly good improvements have been effected. We are now asking you this: Put that machinery in action and see whether it works. I am sure it will work and only when it appears that it does not work, or if it appears in future that the railwayman acts irresponsibly, which I do not believe will happen, the Minister can once again come here and he may then—and I say this in all humility— have a better case for taking away the right to strike than he perhaps has to-day.

We have been listening to the comments of hon. members opposite on this legislation and they all amount to this that the workers are being deprived of the right to strike. The hon. the Minister has explained that other machinery is being created which is naturally much better than the strike machinery. Recently there have not been many strikes under this Government, but the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) told us about the difficult times which they experienced and that they never went so far as to the deprive the workers of the right to strike. I want to ask the hon. member of what value that right was which the workers had during the days under the United Party government? I do not ask that deliberately, but I am asking it with reference to the statement made by the hon. member for Yeoville. It is not a fact that the worker could strike but when he did, force, armed force, was simply used to drive him back to his work and in many instances he was locked up and in many instances thousands of them were dismissed. I want to know from the hon. member for Yeoville whether that was the privilege to which he referred as the privilege which the workers had under the policy of the United Party? You cannot deny that the right which he had to strike was of no value to him. He could strike, it is true, but then he had to take the consequences.

They won more than one struggle in that way.

The workers have won very few struggles. The Minister is now creating other machinery. It is generally admitted in the country by the workers and the public that the Railways are to-day the greatest and the most efficient undertaking in the country. What is more, it is the best service which any person can enter. Then again those same trade unions can easily fall into very dangerous hands and the right to strike can be misused and the country can be paralysed, as happened in the past. In future that will be prevented. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) said he was pleased about one particular provision in the Bill only and that was the provision which provided that when employees were suspended the Administration could allow them to remain on in a lower grade. I think we are all very grateful for that concession because we found in the past that when an employee was suspended—he probably has a family to support —he had to look for temporary work outside, something which is, of course, very difficult to find, with the result that he did not work at all and that his family suffered as a result. That means that innocent people suffer. This is an improvement, therefore, that will mean a great deal to the workers. Another very important concession is the one in connection with leave, namely that when a worker is suspended he can take that period as his leave. That is a very great advantage. That means that while he is suspended he still receives his salary to live on. That is a privilege which they did not have in the past. It depends, of course, on how much leave he is entitled to. but he has that privilege in any case. Another very important concession is the Minister’s decision that where an apprentice has completed his apprenticeship and where something was perhaps entered in his record during his apprenticeship due to one or other irregularity, that entry is to be deleted from his record on the completion of his apprenticeship so that when he applies, together with people from outside, he will have the same chance as they have because he has a clean record. That shows us once again, Sir, to what extent the Minister has the interests of the workers at heart. The Minister and the Administration ought to be congratulated on this step. We know that young men sometimes do something which they do not regard as serious at the time, but it nevertheless gets entered on their record.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to explain one point in connection with Clause 26 which amends Section 58 of Act No. 39 of 1960. Where a person has purchased a house under the house ownership scheme and he still owes a certain amount on the house, that amount can be recovered from his pension. Suppose, however, that his pension is not sufficient to cover that debt what is the position then? Will that person be given the opportunity to raise a loan outside to meet the shortfall? The position is not clear to me from this clause.

A year or two ago, three years ago, the hon. the Minister staked his reputation that he would make a success of the Railways. It is clear to-day that he has made a success of it and that he is continually making further improvements. I want to assure the Minister that the railwayman is very grateful to the Minister and the Administration for these improvements and that they are greatly appreciated. I am also confident that there will be far fewer resignations from the railway service than in the past. People very often did not realize in the past for what an important and good undertaking they were working and what privileges they were enjoying. But hardly had they resigned when many of them came back and asked to be assisted to re-enter the railway service. Only then do they realize what mistake they had made when they left the good employment which they had had. I am convinced that with all these improvements there will be far fewer resignations from the railway service.

The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) has completely missed the cardinal point in this debate, because he asserted immediately that what the hon. the Minister was introducing in his Bill was new and better machinery to assist the railway servant, machinery which was better and more advanced than the strike machinery, a right which the railwayman presently enjoys. But actually the Minister did not say that. What the Minister did say was that he did not believe that legally or morally the railway servants enjoy this right to strike. Mr. Speaker, it is acknowledged on both sides of the House that this in many respects is an excellent Bill, and I think I will agree with previous speakers that it is to the credit of the hon. the Minister and his Department that the various changes are made which will remove quite a number of anomalies and difficulties which have existed and in respect of which representations have been made to the Minister by the various staff associations. I am sure that all of us appreciate the interest which is shown in the lot of this very vast service of the state in which such a considerable number of our citizens are employed. There are quite a number of us here in this House who find the problems of these employees constantly brought to one’s notice, and we are very sensitive in regard to the improvements which are brought about from time to time, particularly in response to representations made by these associations who, as the Minister rightly said, have shown not only a sense of responsibility, but have also shown a considerable interest in management. I think that is something which one can well underline. It is to the credit of this vast undertaking that the railway employee has shown a great interest in management and has himself contributed towards the improvement and efficiency of the service by the suggestions which he himself has brought forward to the Minister and his Department.

For that reason the hon. member for Wynberg very rightly said that it is very much appreciated that this Bill brings about such important improvements and that it removes a number of anomalies in the service conditions of the Railway employees. I think it is common cause that the railway employee deserves the approval and the praise of the people of South Africa. I think our country must be unique in the vastness of the service and the contributions which the workers have made to the advance of this service, both economically and as a service to the community. They have always distinguished themselves by the very fact that this particular weapon, the strike weapon, which has always been part and parcel of its conditions of employment, has been used possibly less than in most parts of the world, particularly in those parts of the world where the trade union movement has developed so fast and extensively. The reference that was made to Great Britain could be repeated in respect of other big countries where the transport services play such an important part, and, by comparison again, South Africa has an enviable record in this respect.

It is for those reasons that this side of the House feels that with all these improvements it is not necessary to remove what is part and parcel of the whole conception of trade unionism. Perhaps no one knows that better than the hon. Minister himself. A strike is not the easiest thing to be undertaken by a trade union, particularly in a service in which the whole of the public is so intimately concerned, and the very value of public opinion is its greatest deterrent. But here the hon. the Minister has now provided machinery which, as has been pointed out, does more than anything else hitherto to act as perhaps the greatest deterrent to any thought of entering upon a strike. After this commission has reported, after this conciliatory investigation—and that will have taken place after at least 50 per cent of the association has petitioned for a commission of inquiry—it then will be necessary for an additional ballot to take place whereby 75 per cent will have to vote in favour of this very serious step. I say that with all these safeguards, with this responsible form of legislation to protect the public, but at the same time giving the employee every freedom in putting forward his point of view and to advance as far as possible in his interest, it is not necessary for the hon. the Minister to entrench by legislation what is his opinion at the moment with regard to the right of the railway worker to strike if he wishes to do so in any trade dispute that may arise. Our view is that this very acceptable Bill could well have omitted this particular denial of the right to strike, mainly because it is one of the fundamentals of the trade union principle and the strength of the trade union movement both here and in other parts of the world. I think one should always jealously guard the rights particularly of those over whom you exercise so much control, because in the case of the railway worker his conditions of employment are laid down by Parliament, by the highest authority in the land; we as the rulers of a country in Parliament should therefore perhaps even more extensively than the average employer jealously guard and protect the privileges of the workers. In this case the railway workers. Therefore we believe that it was not necessary to remove this particular right. The hon. the Minister himself has admitted that representations were made to him, for instance last year, for an improvement in salary scales and the conditions of work, and he resisted it at the time, possibly, from his point of view, for very good reasons. One knows the Minister takes a great deal of interest in what is placed before him. One has never known the Minister to particularly avoid being fair to his employees, but nevertheless for reasons best known to himself he resisted those particular representations. But in the course of time with the employees pursuing their rights in terms of their conditions of employment, the Minister eventually agreed to that increase. We remember the time when we pressed on this side of the House that the hon. the Minister should as soon as possible consolidate the cost-of-living allowances with the basic salaries. It also took a few years before that was eventually agreed to. But the point is that by negotiation these things are brought about. But despite the earnestness of the appeal of the railway workers, we did not have an ultimatum firmly presented by him that a strike would take place at a particular date. There was this remedy in the hands of the railway worker to resort to if his demands were not met. But he did not at that time for instance retard the progress of the work, he did not diminish his sense of responsibility; the whole matter was handled on a very high standard of responsibility on the part of the railway worker and on the part of the Department. If there is confidence on both sides, a very much higher standard of responsibility is maintained than when people are in a position of complete frustration and when they feel that there is no remedy and that the whip-hand lies entirely with the employer, particularly when the employer is the state. I don’t know that the hon. the Minister is achieving such a great deal by entrenching in the legislation what is a point of view that he states he has himself for some time held.

I would like to say that in a Bill of this nature where nothing but goodwill could result from the steps that are being taken, where quite clearly the associations have found that the Administration is endeavouring to improve their lot. particularly where an association feels that there is appreciation of the great services that it is rendering to the community, we should not have such a provision which amounts to a diminution of their rights. I do not think there need be any apprehension on the part of members of the Government who speak in support of this Bill, any apprehension of the dire results and consequences of a strike, simply because in this particular industry of all industries the example that has been set over the many years should give the whole House complete confidence in the responsible attitude of the worker.

We would not like to hold up a measure of this nature, but we do think that in principle it is our duty to jealously guard the rights of those employed by the State. We feel that that is due to them and that it is the Opposition's duty to plead this particular matter on behalf of the railway workers, and I personally have every confidence that the hon. the Minister will take into consideration the plea that has been made on this side of the House; I hope that my confidence is justified and that by the removal of this particular clause the faith and confidence of the Minister and his Department in the railway workers will once again be firmly asserted.

The Opposition goes on telling us that they accept this Bill broadly but they nevertheless go on talking. The prompter of the Opposition, the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) said in such a roundabout way that the Opposition supported the principles of this Bill, with a qualification in respect of the strike provisions, that it subsequently cost the hon. member for Yeoville a speech in order to explain what the hon. member for Wynberg really intended. I listened very attentively to the whole argument of the hon. member for Wynberg and the only real objection which the hon. member has against the whole Bill, or rather the only doubt which he has, is the suspicion which he has at the back of his mind that the Minister had exerted pressure on the staff associations in order to obtain their approval of these changes; that the hon. the Minister had twisted the arm of the staff associations in order to get them to agree to this Bill. That is his only objection. He would have been quite satisfied with this measure had it not been for this provision and they raise that objection in spite of the fact that the Minister said that the leaders of the staff associations, on behalf of the workers, had accepted this Bill. But the hon. member for Wynberg is more inclined to listen to a few ordinary members of the Staff Association who approached him and told him another story. He is more inclined to believe them than the responsible officials of the associations who negotiated with the Minister. He bases his whole suspicion on the discussions which he had around the corner with a few members of the local staff associations and on a few newspaper reports which he had read.

The Opposition is really busy fighting for the alleged rights of the railwaymen, rights which they legally never had. Our contention is that the railwaymen never had the right to strike. The Minister explained that. There were strikes in the past, but they were allowed because the machinery whereby action could be taken against illegal strikes was so ineffective that it would have taken years to bring the offenders to book. They had to be charged individually and that was the only reason why they could strike in the past; but that was not a right which they had in the past. Section 28 of the Service Act, Act 22 of 1960, which lays down the procedure whereby disputes between the Administration and its employees must be settled makes no provision for strikes. Nowhere in the Service Act is there any reference to the right of a railwayman to strike. How can hon. members say that this is a right which they had in the past and that we now want to disarm them? They have never had that weapon.

Furthermore, when you read Section 46 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, which deals with disputes which are subject to compulsory arbitration, you cannot construe the wording to mean that the Railways are excluded. It says that any employer, except a local authority which provides light and power and passenger transport within a local authority area … If hon. members want to put a strict legal interpretation on that, they can say that the Railways are excluded, because it says within the area of a local authority. They can argue that way if they want to, but in that case I can equally well contend that the Railways also convey passengers within a local area. They do not only convey them there but they probably convey more of them than any other public transport system. I contend therefore that under the Service Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act the railwayman has never had the right to strike.

Where this prohibition of strikes is introduced under Clause 16, this Bill also contains far-reaching provisions in respect of the settlement of disputes between the Administration and its employees. In terms of Clauses 14 and 15 it is compulsory in certain circumstances that a commission be appointed. That was not compulsory in the past. It is also compulsory that the recommendations of that commission be carried out. Here the railwayman is given an opportunity which he never had in the past. I thought the Opposition would welcome this but now they moan about the alleged privilege which the railwaymen supposedly had to strike. Mr. Speaker, strikes in a national transport system are catastrophic. We have examples of that in other countries, and the fact that other railway systems in the world are stricken by strikes whereas ours is not, makes all the difference, because the S.A. Railway system is one of the few systems in the world which shows a profit to-day. Most of the systems in the world are conducted at a tremendous loss and the reason for that is mainly the strikes with which they are stricken.

We are apparently all heartily agreed as far as the changes in the disciplinary code are concerned but I cannot resume my seat without drawing attention to a few particular concessions which are being made to the railwayman. Not only does this new disciplinary code state the position in regard to disciplinary inquiries much more clearly but the tendency is also to limit the duration of those disciplinary inquiries and to make them go off as quickly and as smoothly as possible so that it will not be necessary for servants to wait for months on end for the results of such disciplinary investigations. Nor can I omit to join hon. members in expressing my gratitude for this very great concession which is made namely that where a servant is suspended on account of a disciplinary offence, and who often had to sit at home for months in the past without a penny compensation, now has the choice to work in a lower grade so that he can maintain his family. The loss of salary on suspension was a cruel punishment in the past. Some families often suffered very severely in the past as a result of that, and provision is now being made for a person to maintain his family while he is suspended and is really not entitled to any remuneration. It is true that the old Act provided that such a person could go and work elsewhere while he was suspended, but who will employ anybody who, when you ask him where he has worked, tells you he works on the Railways but he has been suspended because they say he has stolen? They could not find employment. Provision is, however, now made for them to work.

Clause 8 (c) provides for a further concession to them namely that although a person is found guilty by such a disciplinary inquiry his compensation is refunded to him for the period he was suspended. In the past he could only get part of it back. The Administration is now empowered to refund him all his money for that period. A further concession is also granted to him. If he had worked in a low-paid grade when he was suspended and if he had received a lower wage during his suspension, the Administration decides, after the conclusion of the disciplinary inquiry, whether it had won its case or not, that it will not pay him the difference in salary for that period, that person will in future have the right to appeal against that decision and to try to get that remuneration. This concession means a tremendous lot to the railwayman and it will save a great deal of suffering in future.

In conclusion I wish to draw attention to a number of other big improvements in the legislation, such as the one in Clause 10, which lays down that in future the punishment imposed for disciplinary offences committed by apprentices in the past, should no longer remain on their records as in the past. It means a great deal to an artisan if he can start his service with a clean record. In the past when these people committed offences, those offences were noted on their records and they had to compete for promotion with men whom the Railways had taken on from outside, men with clean records because the offences which they had committed when they served their apprenticeship are not known. In future they will all be placed on an equal footing.

In Clause 21 provision is made for much better compensation to those many railway servants Who have to retire before they reach the retiring age on account of ill health or disability. Very often such a person has rendered excellent service, but he may suffer a thrombosis attack and be unable to carry on with his work and he has to be paid off as disabled. Often his period of service was so short and his compensation consequently so small that he found it comparatively difficult to live. A great improvement is being brought about here. Unlike the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) I think that it is a good thing that people should be nominated by the staff associations to serve on boards instead of being elected by the members. Ordinary railway workers are very indifferent as far as their trade unions are concerned, their attitude is one of laissez faire, and the time is long overdue that something be done to stimulate their interest in their trade unions. They are not sufficiently interested. They are only interested when they do not approve of the agreements which the boards of their trade unions have come to with the authorities. Then they say the board is bad and that it should be kicked out. But when the ordinary work of the trade union has to be done and they have to elect members to the board, they are not interested at all. That is why I am pleased that the associations are given more responsibility and that the representatives will be nominated.

On the whole this Bill has received very little opposition from this side of the House, except for that sting in its tail, the strike prohibition clause. The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) said he listened to the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) and the impression he got was that the Minister of Railways had twisted the arm of the staff associations in order to get them to agree to the elimination of the right to strike. The Minister admitted that he offered a quid pro quo, and I can assure him that he did not offer it very lightly. Now, talking about strikes, the Minister told us that the definition of “strike” in the new Bill was taken from the Industrial Conciliation Act. That is correct, but it is a very wide definition, and those of us who have read it realize its effect. But the word “strike” goes very much deeper than that. To strike is not only the right of a trade union, but the right of everybody from the cradle to the grave. It is a natural protest which is inborn in all of us. You see it in children and grown-ups, and you actually see it in Ministers of this House when they attend UN and when at loggerheads, and in order to lodge their protest at what is going on they boycott UN and stay away. What would have happened if the regulations of UN said that you cannot stay away? The whole principle of a strike is inborn; just as it is the right of the working man to sell his labour in the best market.

The Minister has told us that the Railways are an essential service and he has compared it with municipal departments and local authorities. I think we on this side agree that they are an essential service, but not completely. One would not say that the production section of the Railways is an essential service, otherwise you would have to include all those manufacturers who are producing for the Railways at present. One can define the running side and maintenance as an essential service, but that is about all. [Interjection.] It is suggested here that the Railway Board is an essential service, but I do not agree with that. I would not object if they went on strike. The peculiar thing is that when the Minister introduced the Bill he went to great lengths to tell us that the executives of these associations were responsible people, and he referred to their great loyalty. I agree with him. They are responsible people who do not take strike action lightly. The constitution of the Artisan Staff Association provides that before they take strike action they have to get the support of 75 per cent of their members. What is the position if this right is taken away from them? The definition in the Bill, and in the Industrial Conciliation Act, is so wide that it will act as a form of intimidation against the workers. Strikes or talk of striking for better conditions start at a very low level. They start from the worker to the shop steward and then it goes to the executive and then you get the basis of collective bargaining with the employer. But if this clause remains in the Bill, it will have the effect that any worker in the Railways who suggests quite inadvertently—which might quite easily happen—that they should go on strike is committing an offence and can be dealt with severely. You get a form of intimidation, and what is going to happen? You will kill the initiative of the whole of these staff associations and the whole basis of collective bargaining between the employer and the employee. Although the employer in this case is a State concern, we must look upon it as just an ordinary commercial concern. I want to ask the Minister to give very serious consideration to dropping this particular clause which prohibits strikes. It will do considerable harm. I am personally surprised at this suggestion in the Bill coming from the Minister. He has been a leader of labour in his time and he has been Minister of Labour, and a good one. I cannot understand his attitude. Is it because last year when the Railway Staff wanted better conditions they stated that if they did not succeed they might take a strike ballot? Is that the reason why he told the House that they have no right to strike? But they have the right to strike. You cannot stop any person from refusing to work. If this Bill goes through, the machinery for collective bargaining will lose its effect. The trade union movement in the Railways will lose its effect and the Minister will be dealing with people who, through intimidation as the result of this Bill, will be less determined to put their viewpoint. Notwithstanding the fact that they had a rise in wages recently, conditions are changing from day to day, and it may be that in the near future these same workers will require their conditions to be improved. They approach the Minister for improvements in their conditions, and he refuses. What is the position then? He tells us that he has offered them a quid pro quo, but that quid pro quo means nothing. The position is this, that if a group of men through their association protest for improved conditions, he has the right to ignore them. He may say there are not enough people asking for it and it will not upset the working of the Railways. These same people will have to go back and organize a petition to the State President for arbitration. But these workers, in order to organize that petition, are actually breaking the law because they are doing what they are not supposed to do; they are not allowed to organize for better conditions under this Bill. That is intimidation. I would ask him to consider dropping this clause where he prohibits strikes.

Are you serious now?

Yes. Then Clause 3 deals with housing loans. In the White Paper the Minister gave us the background why he changed the whole set-up. I would like to ask him whether he can give the assurance to the House now that he will have the power to fix the rate, that the rate he will fix will not be to write off the losses incurred in the past. It says in the White Paper that over the years, through not being able to fix the rate to the nearest portion per cent, losses have occurred. I would like him to give the assurance that in fixing the rate for the new housing loans he will not include these losses in calculating what is to be paid by the new house-owners on their loans.

Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the clause prohibiting strikes, there are one or two points I would like to put to the Minister in relation to the other clauses of the Bill, and the first is in connection with the nomination of members of the Superannuation Fund Board. The Minister has provided in this Bill for the nomination to the Board of an equal number of representatives of the staff associations and from the Administration. The suggestion I wish to put to the Minister is that he should make provision in this Bill for the nomination by the staff associations for an annuitant member to serve on the Board. [Interjection.] I am asking for that because of the many letters I receive from pensioners asking for financial relief to be extended to them. The point I make here is that the representatives of the staff associations represent the staff in the service and not the pensioner members. From the figures I have been able to obtain, it would appear that when the last actuarial report was submitted in 1959, the pensioner members totalled some 12, 289 and the total number of members of the Fund, the contributors, as at 31 March 1959 was 102.304. The question I put to the Minister is this: Who puts forward claims for improvements on behalf of the pensioner members of the Superannuation Fund at the board meetings? It is quite clear that these pensioner members are the forgotten section of ex-servants of the Railways. The suggestion I put to the Minister, and which is worthy of consideration to improve this Bill, is to provide in the Bill a provision for pensioner members to serve on the Superannuation Fund Board. I can see no difficulty at all because there are amongst the pensioners many who have served on that board over the years and are familiar with the procedure. I see no reason why they should not be given representation on the board so that their interests will be kept in mind whenever discussions take place in relation to any changes which might be proposed in future by the Board or the Administration.

The next suggestion is in connection with the Appeal Board machinery which has been set up and which is now put before us in an improved form. I wish to put this point to the Minister, and it is one which I will not be permitted to discuss in the Committee Stage because it will not be part and parcel of any one clause. It is the present method of dealing with cases that fall under the provisions of this Bill, but are not provided for in one clause of the Bill. I am referring to the machinery set up by way of regulation to control the manner in which charges will be set out against those servants who have fallen foul of the regulations.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

When the House adjourned, I was busy dealing with two aspects of this Bill and had asked the hon. the Minister to consider allowing an annuitant—an ex servant —to be nominated for appointment to the Joint Superannuation Fund Board.

I also touched upon Clauses 8-12 of the Bill dealing with the disciplinary code. I am now going to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to accept an amendment or to include in the regulations a provision which will prevent the type of thing which I am now going to talk about, happening in future. I can best illustrate this by dealing with a specific case, i.e. of a servant who had been charged on two counts. After a board of inquiry had considered his case, its findings were that the charges could not be established. Now follows the important point, namely: Those findings were submitted to the staff officer who accepted one of the findings but not the other. Accordingly, he found the servant concerned guilty on the one charge despite the fact that the board of inquiry found that the charge could not be established. The servant concerned lost his appeal, the unanimous finding of the appeal board being that the conviction should stand. The Minister is aware of the fact that in terms of these and the existing provisions, there is no further right of appeal either to the General Manager, the Minister or the Railway Board.

Now I should like to ask the Minister to consider allowing, where a board of inquiry has found that charges could not be established. a further appeal from the servant concerned to go finally through to the Railway Board. At present the position is that if the finding of the appeal board was not unanimous, the servant concerned may go right through to the Railway Board before a finality is reached. I do feel that where an inquiry has taken place and where the investigating officer has found, after considering all the evidence, that a charge cannot be sustained, then that servant should have the right to submit his case right up to the Railway Board. I put this to the Minister and should like him to comment upon it when he replies to the debate. Why I think it is important that such a servant should be allowed to go right up to the Railway Board, is because of what I found in the General Manager’s Report for the year ending December 1962. I find that of 737 appeals considered by the Board 102 were upheld, and it does indicate that despite the existing machinery, there can still be a miscarriage of justice. I therefore should like the Minister to consider this point very carefully.

I now come to what I regard as the most difficult part of the Bill, namely that part providing for compulsory arbitration, i.e. in Clause 15 and the prohibition of strikes in Clause 16. When the Minister outlined his case for the acceptance of these two clauses, he was at pains to give all the reasons as to why, in his opinion, the strike weapon should be outlawed and replaced by compulsory arbitration. He did not, however, outline why it was that the present machinery had failed in its objective to prevent serious disputes in the service. If we take the existing Act and we look at the provisions which the hon. the Minister now seeks to amend, we find the following wording in Section 28—

These are the words I should like to underline …

and now I should like to emphasize these words …

The point I should like to make is that the trouble which there was with the Artisan Staff Association last year, arose out of the fact that the Minister did not give effect to these particular provisions of the Act. I say this because this Bill which is before the House now, is to prevent serious disorganization in the working of the railways, ports and harbours and the Minister must have realized that his refusal to appoint a commission or to report the matter to the State President would bring about a state of further uncertainty and a threat of strike by the workers because, in their opinion, they had a very strong case.

The point I should like to make is that the present Act failed because the Minister failed. The Minister refused to appoint a commission of investigation or inquiry. That is the position. When the last commission of inquiry was appointed—the Grindley-Ferris commission—we had the same problem, only it had gone a step further. The men had actually organized a go-slow strike and when this created a serious disorganization of the railways, ports and harbours, the then Minister appointed the commission referred to. This commission found favourably for the men. I say that the present hon. Minister, in not agreeing to the appointment of such a commission, could have precipitated serious difficulties last year.

But what happened last year? Within a very short while and before any action was taken by the men, the Minister agreed to go into the matter again with the result that the entire staff did receive a considerable improvement in their wage conditions. What happened between the time that the Artisan Staff Association had pleaded for a commission of inquiry and the time when the Minister agreed to the wage improvements? Nothing had happened in the meantime to the facts of the case of the Artisan Staff Association! And thus I say that the Minister, through his failure to appoint a commission of enquiry, precipitated the difficulties which subsequently resulted.

The next avenue the staff association had open to it, was the presentation of a petition signed by 20 per cent of its members. This petition was presented but the State President, acting on the advice of the Cabinet, refused to appoint a commission. We thus have these two illustrations of how the Minister, or the Cabinet, was able to block an investigation into the conditions which the staff association considered were not in their favour. Therefore I say that had the Minister met the provisions of the present Act, there would have been no need for the strike weapon to be removed at all.

I want to stand still here for a moment and remind the House that it has only been through the threat of using and the use of the strike weapon that all railwaymen had been able to obtain benefits in the past. The strike weapon which the Minister now seeks to abolish, has been used with great care and on very few occasions. When the Minister made out his case on the basis that the railways is an essential service, he equated it with the transportation service here in Cape Town. I do not think such a comparison can be made and for the following reason. Let us consider what is spent by the Railways in the year ending December, 1962. We find that stores to the value of R30,000,000 odd were imported and contracts were entered into and orders placed in South Africa for the local supply or importation of stores and equipment to the approximate value of R64, 176, 871. (See p. 102 of Report). Now, what are these supplies which were not manufactured in the railway workshops but brought in? These, namely, electric locomotives, wagons, steel (S.A.R./Iscor agreement), permanent-way material, wheels, axles and tyres, plant and machinery, motor vehicles, pneumatic tools, rations, cranes and spares, oil, grease and petrol, paint, varnish, etc., clothing and electric cable and wire.

If the Minister’s case is logical, then all the industries manufacturing these goods should be declared essential services because if these goods were not supplied to the Railways, serious disorganization could result. Where is this thing going to end? If the Railways are going to be considered as being an essential service and all these goods which are being supplied to the Railways is, if the Minister is logical, declared to be essential services, then we will only have compulsory arbitration in the Republic and there will be no strike weapon left for any of the trade unions. That is why we attach so much importance to what the Minister is doing here.

There is, however, another important issue. The Minister in introducing this Bill this afternoon, paid a well deserved tribute to the staff negotiators—in other words, the trade union leaders. In doing so, he intimated that the Administration had considerable confidence in these leaders. But this Bill is a Bill of no confidence in those leaders. This Bill is not necessary, particularly the compulsory arbitration clause and the strike clause, because, if what the Minister claims is correct, namely that he has every confidence in these leaders and that all these leaders had agreed to the provisions of this Bill, surely the best way in which to have handled this matter would have been to leave it to the trade unions concerned to apply to the industrial registrar for an amendment to their constitution outlawing the strike as a weapon.

The importance of what is being done now is this, namely that Parliament is being asked to do what the trade unions, according to the Minister, have agreed to do. Why should Parliament now come and interfere in this issue? Why should the Artisan Staff Association not do what the Minister says it has agreed to do, namely to abide by this Bill, and to leave it to them to amend their own constitution, leaving Parliament out of the picture altogether? Is it right that Parliament should now do something which will present the staff associations with a fait accompli when meeting for its next conference? Surely our function as Parliament is not to impose these conditions on the association but rather to get the consent of the association and leave it to them to take the necessary steps to bring about what the Minister wants. It is quite clear to me that Clause 15 (6) imposes compulsory arbitration on the staff association. Similarly, it is quite illogical to suggest that we can retain the strike action and at the same time retain Clause 15 (6). In other words, if we have compulsory arbitration, then the strike clause has to be removed from the constitutions of the railway staff associations.

It is quite clear to me therefore that the Minister in his negotiations with the staff association has made it his main point that in his opinion the railway service is an essential service and as such be treated in exactly the same way as those services included in the Industrial Conciliation Act as essential services—in other words, they can only control their future conditions of service by way of compulsory arbitration. The new provisions provide that if there is compulsory arbitration, the finding of a commission of inquiry, will be binding upon both sides. That is the basis of compulsory arbitration. The Minister, knows and I know that there has only been one staff association over the years that has really fought against refusals by the Administration to improve conditions of pay and other things. If we are now going to have compulsory arbitration, and one of the staff associations which seeks improvements in the wages of its members is successful, is the Minister quite satisfied that, as a result of compulsory arbitration, he has to give effect as soon as possible to the recommendations of such a commission? The Minister knows that if one staff association succeeds in getting improvements in wages, the others will follow suit and ask for improvements as well? The position appears to me to be more difficult under these provisions than under the existing provisions. Under the present provisions the Minister is in a position to say to staff associations collectively “Look, I have R20,000,000 to allocate. Put proposals before me which will meet the needs of all sections of the staff. But under the provisions of this Bill that will no longer be the position. He will not be able to instruct the arbitration board that he can only spend so much and that, therefore, he must not be involved in any additional expenditure. That will be the position. And so I say that although the machinery which is being created by this Bill appears on the surface to be in order, there are going to be snags in its application. In regard to the existing machinery, I have already indicated that it has not been given a fair trial because this Minister as well as previous Ministers were not prepared to agree to a committee of investigation. Instead of an investigation, the Minister is now coming forward with a proposal for compulsory arbitration under certain conditions. Let us now have a look at these conditions. They do not vary much from the existing conditions. If the Minister is of the opinion that there is likely to be a considerable number of staff involved in a dispute and is likely to lead to disorganization, he can report the matter to the State President, who shall then appoint a commission of inquiry. If the Minister is, on the other hand, not satisfied, he will not make such a report and the staff concerned has then to get 50 per cent of their number to agree to present a petition to the State President. If they can do that, the State President will be compelled to appoint an arbitration board.

I do not know whether many members in this House have had any experience of what is involved in getting signatures for petitions. I can say that it is a very difficult and lengthy process. I think the Minister is aware of that. That is why he has increased the percentage from 20 to 50 per cent. It is not an easy thing. Despite that, however, the staff associations themselves have, in their constitutions a provision that no strike action can take place unless 75 per cent of their membership agree to it. This, I say, is the real test as to whether there is irresponsible use of the strike weapon or not. I can see no problem here. If the Minister were to incorporate in the existing provisions a clause which would enable or compel a commission of inquiry to be appointed if 50 per cent of the members of a staff association sign the petition, he would not have had the trouble last year, nor the trouble of 1945, because I am convinced that any commission of inquiry consisting of impartial persons will prevent any trade union from ever being able to get 75 per cent of its members to support a strike action if the facts disclosed by such a commission of inquiry show that that trade union has no case. That, Mr. Speaker, is surely what we want here. We want to know what the facts are and we want to be in a position to judge. We want to know whether the men have a case or not. Therefore, my plea to the Minister is not to be too hasty with this legislation. Let the staff associations, if they, as the Minister intimated, accepted the principle of compulsory arbitration, put their own house in order. The Minister will then have no need to come to Parliament.

So far as I, therefore, am concerned, I say that this Bill is not a Bill which indicates to us that the Minister has complete trust in the trade union leaders of the railway servants. I say this because I know these men; I know them very well. I have not had any consultation with them about this Bill, but I accept what the Minister told us to-day to be the position, namely that they have accepted this Bill—whether or not with misgivings I do not know. However, he gave me the impression when he spoke this afternoon, that some of the trade unions were quite happy while others were not so happy and that he drove a hard bargain. I do know this, however, that if the staff associations gave the Minister an undertaking that they would accept the provisions of this Bill, I am quite sure that they will take the first possible opportunity to bring their constitutions into line with those provisions without Parliament having to impose the conditions upon them. They would have done it of their own free will. And, surely, that is what we want in this country. We want trade unions to give their rights away themselves rather than that Parliament should take them from them. Surely that is a principle which we should accept; and surely that is a principle which an ex-Minister of Labour would appreciate—if he is able to persuade trade unions to give up their rights, it is far better than to come to Parliament and ask Parliament to remove such rights. Therefore I think we have to be most careful here. I have already indicated that it is my opinion that once this Bill goes through and the Minister has decreed that the Railways constitute an essential service, there is going to be requests from all types of industries outside for the same declaration in respect of trade unions controlling collective bargaining in those industries because it is so much easier to have compulsory arbitration machinery than negotiating machinery.

There is another point which I should like to put to the Minister and to the House, and that is that in all outside industrial council agreements, the principle of voluntary arbitration or negotiation in wage rate determinations, is not as difficult as it is in the Railway service. That is so because most agreements arrived at in outside industries are for a fixed period— one, two or three years—at the end of which there will be a review and the whole process of negotiations will start afresh. The Minister knows that in the Railways, on the other hand, improvements in wages are not for a specified period but there has to be further negotiations when the staff associations are convinced that there should an adjustment in their salaries. On these grounds, the machinery which we lay down for the Railways should be superior to that applying outside. As I see the position here, the Minister holds the trump card—he is taking away their strike weapon and puts in its place compulsory arbitration knowing of the difficulties facing trade unions in getting the necessary signatures to a petition in order to get a commission appointed.

I can only hope that the Minister will listen to what we have told him and that he will accept the proposition which we have put to him, namely that if he were to remove subsection (6) of Clause 15 and delete Clause 16, the Bill will improve the existing machinery to such an extent as to render the need for the use of the strike weapon most unlikely. We should also like the Minister in his reply to tell us more fully exactly what did happen when the proposals we are dealing with now were put to the staff associations and whether counter proposals from them went as far as this Bill does in removing the strike weapon and replacing it by compulsory arbitration.

I think that hon. members arrived at the conclusion, as I did, that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) had very little enthusiasm for the plea which he made this evening for the retention of the right to strike. He reminded me of the man who had an old horse of which he was very fond. The old horse fell ill and the man was very worried. He tried to make the old horse well but he noticed that the horse was very close to death. He then simply poured the medicine over the horse; he did not give it to him in the usual way. That is the impression which the hon. member gave me. It is my fervent wish that if we do perhaps have trade union leaders in South Africa who still toyed with the idea of retaining the right to strike, they could have been here this afternoon and to-night. They would then have agreed with me that if this is the best argument that can be advanced for the retention of the right to strike, then the sooner that right is removed the better.

Mr. Speaker, the right to strike is a relic of the days when there were Governments which were disinterested in disputes between employers and employees; when there were employers who acted in a bullying way and when there was no other solution but to call a strike. I do not take it amiss of hon. members opposite that they adopted the attitude they did adopt. Take for example the argument which the hon. member himself used, namely, that we already have trade unions which have provided in their constitutions that unless they receive support from 75 per cent of their members, there can be no strike. Here we have proof that the trade unions themselves are taking constitutional steps to abolish the right to strike completely. Is there a better argument for the abolition of this right than the fact that the trade union leaders and others who are responsible for the constitutions of such trade unions, are themselves indicating that the right to strike is something entirely of the past?

May I point out to hon. members that a strike is something which is not only unpopular with the workers but with the public as a whole. If a strike is called, the authority against whom the strike is aimed, is not affected. Other innocent bodies are affected by it, bodies which have nothing to do with the dispute. Take the case of any industry in the country, such as the dairy industry, or hospitals or any public service. If a strike is called, the authorities are not affected, but those innocent bodies which have nothing to do with the dispute are affected. For this reason the strike as a weapon has fallen more and more into disfavour with employees and the general public. Is my hon. friend opposite simply unable to appreciate or understand that fact?

Strikes are still a relic of the days when the strongest man governed and when there were no courts to which a man could appeal for the redress of his grievances. Can you imagine what the repercussions would be if employees had to resort to strikes to compel their employers to accede to their demands? In the past, however, there was no way to inform their employer of their grievances. But to-day that is no longer the case. The position is that a weak man no longer has to stand up to a strong man if he is attacked by the strong man. After all, there is a law which ensures that the rights of the weak are protected. Thus in these civilized times in which we are living, we have developed a set of industrial laws, one of which the hon. the Minister mentioned this afternoon and which forms part of the pattern, laws by means of which one can settle such disputes in the same way as they are settled when they exist between two persons. This system has worked so effectively and satisfactorily in respect of organized labour in the country that they do what my hon. friend has already mentioned and that is to lay down in their constitution provisions which make it practically impossible for any group of workers to strike provided they have such a constitution. Can my hon. friends not understand that that is something entirely of the past? Can they not understand that they are advocating something which is dangerous? Where in the past strikes were merely means which were used to settle a dispute between employer and employee, to-day they have assumed completely different proportions. The strike as a weapon to-day is a two-edged sword. to-day it is no longer a means which can only be used to air the rightful grievances of the workers. This is not the case in England or in America. No, it has become a very dangerous weapon. Hon. members ask why we are removing that dangerous two-edged sword. We are removing it because it is no longer used, although it is still available; it is a danger. One would not allow a two-edged sword to lie around in the House amongst people who are always arguing, because if one person becomes annoyed he may grasp it and hurt somebody else with it. In the same way the strike weapon to-day has become a weapon in the international sphere. Trade unions very easily become the prey of international organizations and this may lead to international hostility, which may also develop into political hostility. You may for example have political organizations which are too weak to send members such as those on this side and those on the other side, to Parliament, and the only way in which they can embarrass the Government is by creating disturbances. I think most hon. members in this House will agree with me that a very large number of the strikes over the past 30 years have to a large extent been political instruments. We must realize that we also have to deal here with the Bantu people whom we as guardians have to protect. Those people may easily become the victims of political organizations …

I do not think that the hon. member should speak about victims. I think he should confine himself more to the Bill.

I am confining myself to the danger of this weapon, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will bear with me for a while, Sir. If someone wants to retain a weapon and somebody else wants to take it away, I have every right to show how dangerous that weapon is. Is it not true that for seven years we have heard from hon. members opposite that if they cannot have their way in regard to certain legislation they will paralyse this country? Have they not told us that they will paralyse industries in this country?

Now you are talking nonsense.

The hon. member knows that the truth hurts. If I continue much longer I may hurt him even more. Is this not the time to issue a warning against that weapon because there are still hon. members opposite who want to retain that weapon? Hon. members must admit that the machinery which is at present available to employees and their organizations by this specific legislation is far better than that dangerous weapon which they had in the past, namely, the right to strike. I cannot remember one occasion on which the right to strike was applied in such a way that the workers could rightly say that because it was a successful instrument they wanted to retain it. If you have a weapon which is only dangerous and is ineffective in the settlement of disputes between employers and employees, then the time has come for us to remove that weapon. I want to appeal to the hon. gentlemen on that side to agree with me that the machinery which has been established for the workers is so efficient that no injustice can be done to them, unless the dispute is not brought to the attention of a properly instituted body which is able to say, “You are right and you are wrong.” Let us create such machinery so that we can eliminate every possible sign of trouble in our industrial and public life. We must not be so disinterested as to say that although it is not being used we must still retain it. We do not know whether the various trade unions will always be controlled by sensible people. The election of those people is not in our hands. The leadership of the various trade unions might very easily fall into the hands of careless people. When we, as the persons who are called upon to look after the interests of the country as a whole, appreciate that danger, we must not shrink from removing that danger.

Mr. Speaker, it is said that a country deserves the Opposition that it has but I do not think that South Africa deserves this Opposition. They remind me of a man who has lost his way in the forest; he keeps on walking in circles and he does not know how to get out. They are so lost in their own eloquence that they are unable to advance sound and strong arguments. I have attended many debates in this House over the years but I have never heard so many stupid utterances and so many hopeless arguments and seen so much confusion in their ranks as I have heard and seen to-day. Let me mention a few examples. I just want to say that as far as this provision in connection with strikes is concerned, they have advanced no argument as to why it should not be included and why it should not be retained. They talked about it and said that they were against it but not one of them advanced a counter-argument to refute my arguments as to why this provision should be inserted. However, this debate has produced one thing that is remarkable and which I cannot allow to pass without again drawing the attention of the House to it. I hope too that the newspapers, particularly the English-language newspapers which support the Opposition, will also take notice of this. I refer to the remarkable statement that we had to-day from the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). We know that he is the main Opposition speaker on labour matters. He is also the first lieutenant of the Leader of the Opposition. We must assume therefore that when he speaks and makes a statement he does so on behalf of his party. What is remarkable is what he said this afternoon in connection with strikes. He wants to know how I can expect primitive and raw Native workers to have the right to strike. And yet they are the people who under their race federation plan propose to give those same raw and primitive Natives the right to be represented in this Parliament. It is significant that he made that statement to-day. I almost thought that the hon. member was preparing the way so that he could cross over to this side, because I do not think that we on this side have ever put it so strongly. As a matter of fact, I did not even use such an expression when I introduced the Natives (Settlement of Disputes) Act in 1953. I hope that he will adhere to it in future.

I say it again.

We have heard a good deal from them in the past few years in connection with the so-called labour policy. If I remember correctly the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) said on various occasions that Native trade unions must be recognized and that Native employees must be recognized under the Industrial Conciliation Act. Yes, he did say it. But to-day the hon. member says that that Act which was passed by this Parliament ten years ago is an excellent measure and that it has worked excellently all these years. He says that that Act discouraged the Native trade unions. In other words, he is quite satisfied with that excellent Act—and there I agree with him—which has maintained industrial peace amongst the Native workers for ten years. He says it is an excellent Act, that it has worked well and is still working well to-day, that amongst other things it discourages Native trade unions, but in the past few years they have said repeatedly that they want Native trade unions to be recognized. How do they reconcile the two statements? I say therefore that they are like a man who has lost his way in the forest; they are going around in circles. One day they say one thing and the next day they say a different thing. I say that we have it on record that to-day their policy is as follows: In the first place Native workers must not have the right to strike. They adhere to that …

Primitive, raw Natives excluded.

Mr. Speaker, is it not truly (“ wragtig ”) pathetic that a man cannot even stand by his word?

Order!

Is it not pathetic that he now has to hedge and try to escape from what he said an hour or two ago? All Native employees are forbidden to strike. How can he expect primitive, raw Natives to have the right to strike? He made no exceptions. We must remember this new declaration of policy: Native employees may not go on strike. He stands by it; he speaks on behalf of his party. Secondly, they no longer want Native trade unions to be recognized because they say that the present machinery is working excellently; it is the right machinery. Incidentally, in 1953 they supported it. They say that this machinery is working excellently; Native trade unions must be discouraged; they must not be recognized, and Native employees must not be recognized either under the Industrial Conciliation Act, That is the statement of policy that we have had here this afternoon. We have it on record now. Does the hon. member for Wynberg agree with that? Mr. Speaker, is it not a pathetic phenomenon?

I do not agree with your interpretation of what he said.

Now they come along again with talk about “interpretations ”. I am convinced that an entirely different interpretation will be placed tomorrow of what the hon. member said. I think there will probably be a statement from the hon. member for Wynberg to explain what the hon. member for Yeoville really said and what he meant. This is the Opposition that South Africa earned! I do not think this country deserves it.

What is also peculiar is this: These hon. members now say to the trade unions in the railway service: “We know what you ought to have; you are not man enough to say what you want; we are going to say what you should have; we are going to tell you what you should ask for; we know better.” None of the speakers over there, except the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), has any experience of the trade union movement. None of them was ever a member of a trade union. None of them ever served on a trade union executive committee. They know nothing about it. But these are the people who say to the trade unions this afternoon: “We say that that is what you ought to have; we say that that is in your best interests.” The hon. member for Wynberg says that he cannot really accept that these trade unions quite voluntarily abandoned the so-called right which they had to strike. I say again that they have no right to strike. What happened in connection with these negotiations? A few years ago I told the staff associations who had asked for improvements to the conciliation machinery that they could submit proposals to me. Three of them submitted proposals to me. I then incorporated my own proposals in a draft bill, which is not quite the same as the one which is now before the House. I then sent this draft bill together with the proposals which I had received from the other few trade unions to all the trade unions, and I said to them: “You can study it first.” I gave them sufficient time; I gave them a month or two. I said to them: “When you have studied it we will have discussions and then deal with this matter.” I subsequently met all the staff associations—not only the leaders, not the chairman or the president or the secretary but the whole executive committee which consists of 20 to 30 members. I met every staff association individually. And we then discussed the whole matter. I considered all their objections and the proposals put forward by them and accepted some of these proposals. The executive committee of every individual staff association fully discussed this matter with me. After I had discussed it with all seven staff associations I met the Federal Council to finalize this matter. The Federal Council consists of representatives of all the staff associations. At that Federal Council meeting I ended by saying that if there were perhaps any misgivings with regard to the wording of any particular provision, they had the right to discuss it with the Law Adviser, Mr. Conradie. The position is that of the seven staff associations, six supported the strike provisions of this Bill; they gave their full support to it. The seventh, the Artisans’ Staff Association, said that they accepted it for this reason that they realized that the railway service was an essential service. This is the only staff association which has a strike clause in its constitution. They said that they accepted it because they realized that the railway service was an essential service. Hon. members opposite now come along and say that they do not agree with that; that the railway service is not an essential service. The hon. member for Wynberg says that certain branches do constitute an essential service but not all of them. He mentioned one—the catering service —which is allegedly not an essential service. That is an argument which I cannot understand. I cannot understand how it can be accepted that the passenger bus service from Cape Town is an essential service and that it should fall under the provisions of Section 46 of the Industrial Conciliation Act but that the S.A. Railways Service, on which the entire economy of this country is dependent—because if the Railways come to a standstill, South Africa comes to a standstill—is not an essential service. Do you know what the trouble is, Sir? These hon. members are not concerned about the interests of South Africa. They are under the impression by opposing this clause, this strike provision, they can derive a little benefit for their party. That is the only reason. The hon. member for Wynberg has never been as uncomfortable as he was this afternoon when he had to defend his Party’s case. He reminded me of an advocate who has to defend a murderer knowing that he is guilty.

I have already defended you on certain occasions.

Yes, then it was a just cause—if he ever did so, which I doubt. He has never been so uncomfortable. If the railway service is an essential service then this provision is perfectly justified. If hon. members are able to prove that the railway service is not an essential service I am prepared to withdraw this provision. I challenge them to prove that the S.A. Railways do not constitute an essential service, but to say that they accept that the bus service from Cape Town is an essential service. Have you ever heard such stupidity, Mr. Speaker? I cannot understand how any sensible person who must have some degree of intelligence can advance such ridiculous arguments. Let me accept his argument that there are certain branches which do not perform essential services. The Artisans’ Staff Association was the only staff association whose constitution provided for strikes. Does the hon. member want to tell me that the work done by the artisans is not an essential service? He lacks the courage to reply. All he need say is “yes” or “no ”. Does the hon. member contend that the work done by the artisans, in other words, the maintenance of all the rolling stock, the maintenance of aircraft, the manufacture of spare parts, is not an essential service? What is his reply?

Why did you allow them to have this right all this time?

They have never had the right to strike, in spite of that provision.

They did have it but … [Inaudible.]

I did not. I shall come to that. Why does the hon. member not reply to my question? Is the work performed by the artisans an essential service?

If it is not, then you have been neglecting your duty for years.

What is the hon. member’s reply? He has made the allegation that not all the branches of the Railways constitute an essential service. I am putting this pertinent question to him now.

I said that it was stated by one of your own Ministers that they were not all performing an essential service.

But the hon. member’s whole argument is based on the fact that it is a good thing to place a prohibition on strikes in the case of people who perform an essential service outside the Railways, but that such a prohibition should not be placed on the Railways. Why not? It is not an essential service!

Does the Minister want me to reply to him? What I said was that we should examine the question as to whether it is an essential service. But even if it is an essential service we should nevertheless see to it, if we deprive them of one right, that we give them another right so as to protect them against victimization.

Now we are getting nearer at any rate. We have now advanced to the point where the hon. member says that it is possible that the Railways are performing an essential service. He is beginning to come nearer and nearer. This afternoon the position was that only certain branches of the Railways were not performing essential services. He mentioned the catering service as an example. [Interjections.] He confirmed that that was so.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to their making interjections. They are the people who usually squeal when one makes interjections. I say that the hon. member is coming nearer. This afternoon the hon. member quoted something which somebody else had said, but he confirmed it. Their whole argument is based on the proposition that the Railways do not constitute an essential service. If they accept that the Railways do constitute an essential service —and the same people who “brag” so much about the Industrial Conciliation Act which General Smuts’ Government allegedly passed in 1924 …

Why do you say “allegedly?”

Very well, let me correct it then. These people who brag so much about the Industrial Conciliation Act which General Smuts introduced in 1924 and which contains this provision in connection with essential services, have no right to oppose this Bill. Section 46 of that Act provides that employees in essential services may not strike. To this day they still accept and subscribe to that principle. If they admit that the Railways constitute an essential service what right and what justification have they for opposing this Bill?

We said so.

You did not say so; that is my very difficulty. They hedged so much, they became so confused in their own arguments, that to this day we still do not know. All they said was that it was not an essential service. Now the hon. member says “yes, but then at least there must be machinery to ensure that they are not victimized.”

Machinery that is equally effective.

Just as effective. But the conciliation machinery which I am proposing here is accepted by them; they say it is a big improvement. It is a big improvement on the present system.

[Inaudible.]

Order! Both the hon. Minister and hon. members must obey the Chair. I want the hon. member for Wynberg to remain seated so that the hon. the Minister can proceed.

What protection do they want? Against what do they want protection? What victimization can there be? Strikes are forbidden now; they are not allowed to strike. Is it the hon. member’s wish that there should be protection for people who strike unlawfully? [Interjections.] I am putting my questions at this stage. The hon. member will have an opportunity again to reply because Mr. Speaker will not allow him to reply now. In the meantime he can write down these questions, and he can answer during the third reading debate. My question is this: What protection do they want? Do they want protection for people who strike unlawfully? What other protection is there? In terms of these provisions there is an excellent conciliation machinery which can be used. No protection is necessary. I say again that they can only argue against these provisions if they can prove that the Railways do not constitute an essential service. If they cannot prove that, however, then there is no substance in their argument. Six of the staff associations which represent the vast majority of the staff have never had a strike provision in their constitutions, but no notice is taken of that fact. There is only one staff association which has such a clause in its constitution and they are quite prepared to accept this Bill as it stands. The hon. member now asks me to postpone this Bill until the Artisans’ Staff Association has held its conference in March. Do you know what that means? It means that these hon. members have no confidence at all in the executive committees of those associations, because they are practically suggesting that they are not prepared to accept that those executive committees speak on behalf of their members. They want a congress to be held so that the members can say whether or not they agree with their executive committees. I hope the staff associations will take notice of the fact that the Opposition has no confidence in the executive committees of the staff associations. They do not believe them. They say, “we do not believe that you speak on behalf of your members if you say that you are prepared to accept this legislation; we do not believe you; we have no confidence in you.” I hope the staff associations will remember that. This Bill has been accepted by the staff associations; six of them support it enthusiastically. Only yesterday I received another telegram from one of the staff associations to assure me once again of their full support for this legislation. The seventh accepts it because they recognize and accept that the Railways constitute an essential service and that railway workers must be treated in the same way as workers outside the railways service who do perform an essential service. In exchange for this prohibition they are getting an improved conciliation machinery which is in their interests as well as in the interests of the Administration.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana completely choked in his own arguments. In the end I was unable to follow him. He said one thing which is really so ridiculous that I feel that I must bring it to the notice of the House again. He said, well, I say that the Railways constitute an essential service, but he says the difference between the Railways and the passenger bus service from Cape Town is this: A large quantity of rolling stock is manufactured for the Railways by private industries and if the Railways constitute an essential service, then all those industries are also essential services. Have you ever heard such a ridiculous argument? In other words, the manufacturers of the buses used in the bus service from Cape Town, which has all its buses manufactured by private industries and which has fallen under the provisions of Section 46 all these years, must also be regarded as providing essential services. How can one argue when people come forward with such ridiculous statements? For the rest, as I have said, he choked in his own arguments.

So much with regard to strikes. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the staff associations will be more grateful to the Opposition if they will leave matters of this kind, which intimately affect the staff associations, in their own hands. Leaders of the staff associations are capable men who at all times look after the interests of their members. If they had not been prepared to accept this provision, they would have said so. They would not have been afraid to do so. They are quite capable of looking after the interests of their members. If they are prepared to accept these provisions, then I think they are going to hold it very much against the Opposition that they adopted this attitude here to-day.

You drove a hard bargain with them.

No, I drove no bargain with them. I did not tell them that this one concession was dependant on the other. The condition was never put to them by me that if they did not accept the strike provisions, they were not going to be given the other concessions. That was never stated. The whole Bill was submitted to them with all these provisions and I invited their comments.

Not in the case of the Artisans’ Staff Association either?

No, not in their case either. I did not put the condition to them that if they did not accept one thing they would not get the other. The hon. member is perfectly entitled to approach the Artisans’ Staff Association and ask them whether I am correct. I am prepared to give him the verbatim minutes, taken down on a tape recorder, of everything that happened between me and that association. More than that I cannot do. I hope that having said this hon. members will realize that they were on the wrong track. I hope they will come to their senses timeously and show a little more sense.

May I put a question? Why did the hon. the Minister not tell us all these things when he introduced the Bill?

After all, I dealt with this matter in detail in my speech this afternoon. I spoke in English so the hon. member must have understood me. I know that he is in some difficulty now, but he must have understood me this afternoon.

Perhaps the position is that because I spoke in English you could not understand me.

No, I did do my best at any rate to speak in English, to speak in such a way that the hon. member could understand me. I stated clearly that I had negotiated with all the staff associations and that they had expressed their agreement. More than that I could not say. I have merely been repeating what I said this afternoon. I am sorry that I did not go into this matter in greater detail this afternoon, otherwise I might have had their support perhaps. Because what must I infer from the interjection made by the hon. member for Wynberg? That if I had said all these things this afternoon they would not have put up this ridiculous opposition. I am expected to apologize now because I did not enlarge upon this matter in greater detail this afternoon!

Then there are just a few other matters which hon. members touched upon. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) raised a matter which has nothing to do with this Bill, and that is in connection with the payment of the balance owing on a house purchased under the house ownership scheme. If the hon. member raises this matter again during the Budget debate, I can reply to it in detail.

The matter raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in regard to representation of annuitants on the Superannuation Fund Board, is also a matter that has nothing to do with this Bill. If the hon. member raises that matter during the Budget debate, I will be quite prepared to reply to it. I do not think it is feasible and I do not think it will be acceptable to the staff, but if he raises the matter again, I will reply in more detail.

The hon. member also wanted an amendment to the Appeal Board regulations. That again is a matter that has nothing to do with this Bill. I know that he has one particular case in mind where the Board of Inquiry could not establish the charges, but where the officer concerned had found the servant guilty in regard to one charge. But that of course is an exception. There again, if the hon. member raises it during the Budget debate, I will be able to reply more in detail.

I believe I have dealt with all the points raised by hon. members, and I trust that after my explanation hon. members opposite will be prepared to support the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the object of this amendment is to facilitate the procedure in regard to the noting of appeal by an exporter against the decision of an inspector, and also to remove any doubt which might exist in regard to the legality of the present procedure. The Agricultural Produce Export Act, 1959 consolidates the legal provisions in regard to the prohibition of or regulation of the export of certain articles like, for example, potatoes, onions, eggs, cheese, butter, etc., and also makes further provision for the inspection and grading of agricultural products to be exported from the Republic.

Section 12 (1) of the aforementioned Act provides that—-

In the regulations providing for the grading of products intended for export the manner in which an appeal in terms of Section 12 (1) is to be noted is prescribed, the amount to be deposited in connection with such appeal, and other matters in regard to such appeal. Now, however, doubt exists as to whether the amount to be deposited in terms of Section 12 (1) may be prescribed by regulation. As Section 12 (I) reads at present, it would appear that in respect of every appeal the Minister must beforehand fix an amount which in his opinion will be sufficient to cover the costs. Such a procedure is very cumbersome and leads to delays, particularly in cases where appeals are noted in respect of perishable products which have already reached the ports, ready for shipping.

In the case of products which are inspected in terms of the Marketing Act of 1937 and the Fruit Export Act of 1957, the Acts concerned provide only that an appeal against the decision of the inspector may be noted in the way prescribed by regulation. This procedure works satisfactorily in practice, and it has therefore been decided to amend the Agricultural Produce Export Act of 1959 accordingly.

The provision in Section 12 (1) with reference to “a board to be appointed by the Minister” also results in practical problems and does not agree with the provisions of the Marketing Act, which provides only that the person or persons by whom an appeal is decided is prescribed by regulation.

Clause 1 of the Bill provides that the State President may issue regulations in regard to the time and the manner in which an appeal is to be noted, the way in which it should be dealt with, the person or persons who have to decide on such an appeal, the deposit which has to be made in regard to such an appeal, the circumstances under which the said deposit or portion of it may be refunded and any other matter concerning such an appeal. By prescribing these particulars by way of regulation, exporters are made au fait beforehand with the requirements for an appeal against the decision of an inspector, and such appeal can be instituted without delay.

Clause 2 of the Bill amends Section 12 of the principal Act to provide that the procedure in regard to an appeal may be prescribed by regulation.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments contained in this Bill will bring the procedure in regard to noting an appeal against the decision of an inspector into line with the procedure applicable to the Marketing Act and the Fruit Export Act and will remove all doubt which may exist in regard to the existing procedure.

As the hon. the Minister has explained, this is an improvement as compared with the old position; it simplifies the matter and we on this side are quite prepared to support it and consider it to be quite right that this amendment should be made.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time. Briefly, this Bill aims at deleting two provisions contained in the Natural Oil Act, 1942, in so far as they are applicable to future prospecting leases for natural oil, namely—

1. (a) The obligation that portion of the prospecting rental paid to the State is to be paid over to the holder of the mineral oil rights; and
2. (b) the provision that such prospecting lease should be registered and noted on the deed of transfer and other deeds concerned.

The proposed amendment emanates from certain developments which have taken place in the sphere of oil development. There are certain factors we have to take into consideration. Formerly the presence of oil was ascertained by boring. That was practically the only method. So we find, e.g., that in Australia 600 holes were bored before oil was discovered and could be developed on a commercial basis. In Canada 3,000 holes were sunk before oil was discovered which could be developed on an economic basis. We are aware of the fact that in the late ’thirties there was also prospecting for oil in the Republic. In the Karoo area an appreciable number of holes were bored unsuccessfully. to-day, however, prospecting for oil is quite a different proposition and it is tackled on a different basis. to-day the first step is not to bore but we ascertain by geophysical methods what the strata are in which oil may possibly occur; the seismograph and other various instruments are used to ascertain the possibilities, and only after that has been ascertained are boreholes sunk. Usually aircraft are used, with the result that to-day there is prospecting for oil without any physical investigation of the soil itself. It is done from the air, and only when it is ascertained that there may possibly be oil is physical occupation taken of the land and boreholes sunk.

There is another factor we should take into consideration, and that is that the cost of prospecting for oil is tremendously high. So we find that in Australia recently five holes were bored at a cost of £A2, 250,000. That is apart from the subsidy of £A500,000 paid by the Australian Government. This only confirms the further statement that to prospect for oil involves high costs.

I also mentioned that Australia subsidizes it, and that is done in many other countries also. Therefore, to prospect for oil involves a very great risk. It also takes a long time. Oil was recently discovered in Angola, but it took ten years from the time they started prospecting until an economic discovery was made. We must take these facts into account, therefore, viz. that it involves great costs and takes a long time and that there are many failures. In general, the opinion of the geologists is that in the Republic of South Africa the chances of discovering oil are not very great. I therefore say that the risk and the cost attached to it are very high, and it is because of that that these amendments are being introduced.

The first clause of this Bill provides for the abolition of the provision that in the case of prospecting leases granted in terms of Act 46 of 1942 a quarter of the rental paid to the State must be refunded to the holder of the mineral rights on that land. This may be the owner of the land, but in case he transferred his rights to another person in terms of some agreement, the latter is the holder of those rights. In view of certain geological and technical developments I have already mentioned, and as the result of the methods and the policy adopted in other countries, the approach to-day is to grant rights to prospect for natural oil over relatively extensive areas, and it is considered particularly advisable in a country like South Africa, where the discovery of natural oil will be of the greatest importance, that during the prospecting stage the emphasis should not be on the creation of sources of revenue for the State or for the owner of the oil rights, but rather to encourage as many people as possible to prospect for oil, inter alia, by levying a reasonable rental when application is made for a prospecting lease.

The result is that a relatively low rental is fixed for a large area which has the result that the division of the rental on a pro rata area basis is usually made between such a large number of persons that it is of little financial importance to the individual. In addition, it is impossible to remain au fait in regard to the names and addresses of the numerous holders of natural oil rights in respect of the various large and small pieces of land constituting such a large leased area and to whom these small amounts must be paid out periodically.

So, for example, the granting of a prospecting lease was approved of in principle some time ago over an area of approximately 5,000 square miles, at a rental which initially will amount to 10 cents per annum per square mile. The holder of the mineral rights in respect of a piece of land of one square mile inside this area will therefore receive only 2½c per annum as his share of the rental. Other areas in respect of which the granting of prospecting leases have also been approved in principle are even greater than that. There are, however, many pieces of land situated in the proposed prospecting areas which are much smaller than one square mile, and in respect of which a pro rata division of the rental will therefore result in an even greater absurdity.

Nor are there sound reasons why the holder of the ore rights should, during the prospecting stage, be compensated by receiving portion of the rental. If no oil is found and removed, he suffers no damage. If oil is in fact found and developed, he will be compensated as provided for in Section 7 of the Act, namely by the payment to him of one-quarter of the amount received by the State as its share of the profits or royalties, and which will in fact be a much larger amount than the prospecting rental. It is therefore to the advantage of the owner if the prospecting leads to the discovery of oil.

It should also be noted that the payment of one-quarter of the rental during the prospecting stage bears no relation to surface damage or surface use by the prospector, and that separate provision is made for the payment of damages and of rental or other compensation in that regard in Section 4 (3) (f) of the principal Act, and in Section 12 (g) of Act No. 39 of 1942 as applied to natural oil by Section 9 (1) of the principal Act. If there is physical occupation compensation will be paid.

This amendment will not affect prospecting leases which have already formally been entered into. At the moment there is only one such lease in force over a small area, and it would not be fair now to stop payment to the holders of the rights to the natural oil of one-quarter of the rental already being received.

In regard to Clause 2 of the Bill, the position is briefly that in terms of Section 15 of the Base Minerals Amendment Act, No. 39 of 1942, as applied by Section 9 of the principal Act to natural oil, prospecting and mining leases, and also certain other rights granted in connection with natural oil, must be registered by the Registrar of Mining Titles, and that the granting of such rights must also be noted by the Registrars of Deeds concerned on the deeds of transfer or other deeds.

The Registrar of Mining Titles must inform the Registrars of Deeds of the registration, and instruct the holder of the transfer deeds or other deeds to transmit these documents to him for submission to the Registrar of Deeds concerned.

Also in this respect we are faced with the difficulty that literally thousands of pieces of land, which must be regarded as separate entities, are included in the large prospecting areas envisaged, and that it is therefore an impossible task to comply with these legal requirements. In addition, the prospecting leases are of a strictly temporary nature and a prospector may abandon large portions of his prospecting area shortly after having been granted the lease, for example, where preliminary geophysical surveys indicate that those areas hold no promise.

Registration of a prospecting lease for natural oil against the title deeds—or the absence of such registration—are also not of much use as an indication that the land is hypothecated or not. On the one hand the position is that with the geophysic and other prospecting methods applied, it may happen that the surface of many of these pieces of land constituting the prospecting area is not interfered with physically, i.e. by boreholes or excavations. On the other hand again, the absence of a notation on a person’s title deed is no indication or guarantee at any given time that a prospecting lease for natural oil has not been granted over his land at that moment. The right to grant prospecting leases for natural oil rests exclusively with the State, and hon. members will realize that it is not practically possible individually to approach the thousands of interested parties whose land is included in a large prospecting area in regard to the matter.

Other, also important, prospecting leases granted in respect of some of our other minerals are not registered against the title deeds of the particular bit of land concerned, and in view of the fact that in the case of natural oil that does not appear to be necessary either —but particularly because it is not possible to do so in respect of the thousands of pieces of land concerned—this requirement is now deleted.

Mining leases for natural oil. as contrasted with prospecting leases, which from the very nature of the matter will be granted over much smaller pieces of land will, however, still have to be registered and the registration noted on the title deeds. This is, briefly, the effect of the proposed amendments and I now move that this Bill be read a second time.

On a casual survey of this Bill now before us, one gains the impression that owners of ground throughout the country are going to suffer a deprivation of rights, and are going to be deprived of certain rentals which in the ordinary course of events would accrue to them. But, Sir, on a closer investigation of the matter and after listening to the hon. the Minister. I find that there is justification for the introduction of this Bill. I say that, because in dealing with prospecting for natural oil, we must see the problem in a different light to that of prospecting for practically every other mineral as has been done in this country.

The main fundamental difference is this, Sir, that as far as natural oil is concerned, the right to prospect and mine for natural oil is vested in the State, and in the State only. That is the difference between prospecting for oil and for other minerals such as gold, copper, uranium, aluminium, diamonds, and so on. The suggestion now before us, as contained in this Bill, gives encouragement to prospectors in this country to investigate the possibility of natural oil in this country. In recent years we have heard of requests from mining houses for encouragement from the Government to carry out prospecting, not only for natural oil, but for all other minerals. I think that the step now being taken by the Government in this Bill is one step on that road to encourage further prospecting and development.

The important factor that must be realized is that this Bill only affects the question or rentals during prospecting operations. When one realizes that, according to recent reports, an area of approximately 125,000 sq. miles is to be investigated by certain companies, and that the rentals for that area would be approximately 1c per sq. mile per year as stated by the Minister, then of the total rental accruing to the State of only approximately R 1, 250 per year, one-quarter would accrue to the owners of the ground namely R318±. That spread over possibly tens of thousands or more owners of land, would be an infinitesimal amount that would accrue to each owner. The cost that would be involved to the State in corresponding with these people, making personal contact with them, and eventually getting any conditions registered against their titles, would certainly not be justified in view of these figures that I have quoted.

As will be realized, it is impossible to comply with the present legal provisions. It is too costly and too cumbersome, and the revenue that would accrue is certainly not justified as against the expense that would be involved.

The owners of ground who may suffer some deprivation of rentals under this Bill, can rest assured that they will be adequately protected by the conditions provided in the original Bill, and which were laid down in 1942 under a very vigilant and a very good Government! Should mining activities eventually take place on any part of the area prospected, that would boil down to a very much smaller area than the area that was originally prospected on. The owners of that smaller area will then receive the benefit of royalties, or share of profits, or any other considerations that accrues to the Government, in the proportion of one-quarter of that amount accruing to the Government.

In order to enable early prospecting to take place, it is a fair request to make to landowners, that they should sacrifice this very small, infinitesimal share of the rentals, in order to share in the possibility of mining for oil on their property.

There is one suggestion I would like to put to the Minister in this regard. Whatever the saving in rentals that is going to accrue to the State by the introduction of this Bill, that saving should accrue to the owners of the ground on which mining activities may eventually take place. Therefore my suggestion to the hon. Deputy Minister is that he should give consideration to his point of view; or alternatively, if that is going to be administratively too difficult, that the money that the State will now be saving in respect of these rentals, should be given in the form of a bursary to some member of the Fuel Research Board in order to carry out further investigations in this field.

Sir, when one realizes that the area to be covered under the prospecting lease as stated by the Minister, could stretch from Cape Town in the south, to Prieska in the north, and practically to Durban in the east, then one realizes what tremendous possibilities there are afoot for this country. And I am one of those who believe that there is a distinct possibility of finding oil in certain areas of this country.

Is that a promise?

I would like it to be a promise, but I cannot take it at his stage any further than that. In view, however, of the advance in modern methods of geophysical and aerial survey that is now available to us in prospecting for oil, I think that this measure is one that is well justified, and under the circumstances, it will receive the support of this side of the House.

I am very grateful to the hon. member for supporting this amending Bill. I think we should welcome this Bill. The search for natural oil is of great strategic value to us, oil is a great asset, and in the two clauses of the Bill before us there is nothing detrimental to the owners of the land. It contains no provisions for expropriation, there is no talk of confiscation, existing rights are fully recognized, and provision is made, as in the 1942 Act, for thorough investigation. No plundering of or injudicious damage to the agricultural value of the land will take place, and seeing that the State will exercise control it will see to it that no irresponsible persons prospect there. In other words, we can be sure that thorough prospecting will take place under State supervision, and that it will be done by experts. We therefore support this Bill and we think it is a good one. The same principles contained in the 1942 Act apply and they are not being changed in any way. It is simply an improvement on the 1942 Act.

There are two points that I should like to raise with the hon. Deputy Minister. If I understood him correctly, if a land-owner is one of the lucky ones and oil is found, then he is going to be compensated amongst other things for any damage to his land on the surface, but I did not gather whether the man whose land is bored on with no success will receive compensation for any damage suffered by him to his surface installations or crops. I am mentioning this, because in years gone by on the Reef, we know of certain instances where bulldozers went into standing crops of mealies just to start a goldmine. It might well be that in prospecting over hundreds of thousands of miles, a man might suffer damage if oil is not found. I would just like the Minister’s assurance that that man too will receive compensation. The second point is vastly more important. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has the authority to grant prospecting leases for oil in a Bantustan, such as the Transkei, and if so, to whom the oil deposits, if any, will belong.

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) expressed the thought that portion of the revenue collected by the State from prospecting leases should be devoted to granting bursaries to promote oil research. I can only say that any fees charged or funds collected in this way will be relatively small because it is regarded as being practically just a further obligation on that person to do something; apart from the provisions of the prospecting contract in terms of which it is his duty to do prospecting, this really compels him to do so. There are costs connected with the matter, and if he does nothing there is in fact an expenditure and, a duty resting upon him. But this money goes to the State, to the fiscus. It is not paid to the Department of Mines, and there is ample provision for research, fuel research, metallurgical research, and also for bursaries. There is ample provision for research and I think it would be wrong in principle to say that portion of this revenue must be used for a specific purpose. Right throughout the policy is that any revenue derived in this way goes directly to the Treasury.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) raised the question in regard to the question of compensation. I think I have stated clearly that when there is physical occupation the owner is compensated for any damage done or for any physical occupation. If buildings are erected, the owner is entitled to rental. In the mining contracts provision is also made for that, and conditions are set to protect forestry activities, game reserves, the surface of the soil, streams, crops, etc. Therefore there are conditions which fully protect the owner if there is physical occupation of the land. The hon. member also asked what the position was in the Transkei.

Clause 2 of this Bill provides that the State has the right to prospect for and to develop oil in the Republic. The State has the sole right to do so. At this stage that is still the position, and I do not think it is necessary to answer any hypothetical questions in that regard.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This is a nice little Bill. Before the war it was decided to fill up a large portion of Table Bay and to create a new part of Cape Town. It was always agreed that this new part of Cape Town would become part of the Municipality of Cape Town, although it belonged to the Government. In the course of time various functions in this new area were handed over to the Municipality of Cape Town, functions such as the control of traffic and various other similar functions. Then the Cape Town Municipality came along and said that, that being the case, they must be allowed to levy rates. We said that that was fine, they could levy rates. Then the Divisional Council came along and said they were allowed to levy rates on all municipal properties.

Shame!

Yes, perhaps it is a shame, but they do it; but I am surprised at the hon. member saying it is a shame seeing that he was a member of the Divisional Council for a long time. But according to the original Act the Divisional Council was not allowed to levy rates on the Foreshore. Well, that was obviously unfair, so now under this Bill we give the Divisional Council of the Cape the right to levy rates on the Foreshore area which has been incorporated in the Municipality of Cape Town. They can levy rates on any property from 1964 that has been transferred to a private owner on the Foreshore, and in certain other areas which are let on lease. There is only one area, in fact, which has been let on 75 years’ lease. On that they will also be able to levy rates as from a date to be fixed by me. In this case it is a garage which has been built there and we only want them to levy rates from such time as that garage is built, but anyone taking transfer of the ground—then the rates will be levied as from 1964. The garage will probably only be completed subsequent to 1964, and I think it is only fair that the rates should be levied on that from the time the garage is completed. That is all that is contained in this Bill and I would like the House to accept it.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to be nice and support this nice little Bill which was put in such a nice way by the Minister. As he said, the Bill is very simple and we think it is only right that the land which has now been reclaimed should be rateable, and therefore we will be nice to the Divisional Council also and support the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this is also a simple little Bill which I can recommend. The principal Act provides that we can give local authorities the right to make regulations over those portions of the beach adjoining their area of jurisdiction, whether the beach belongs to them or not. That means that if a local authority, a municipality or town council or health committee own a beach they can make regulations covering that area. If they do not own it. we can grant them the right to make regulations for that portion of the beach also, so as to see that everything there is properly regulated. In the case where the beach belongs to the local authority, it can make the same regulations which are applicable to the beach applicable also to the adjoining area which belongs to it; i.e., if a beach belongs to a local authority it can frame regulations for that beach and make them applicable also to any adjoining land which belongs to that authority. There are only a few cities and towns in South Africa which own the beaches, like Cape Town, Durban and I think also Port Elizabeth, and they can make the regulations applying to the beach applicable also to the adjoining land, and it is very necessary that they should do so. People go to swim and camp there and it is necessary to apply the regulations also to the adjoining land. But if the beach does not belong to them, but to the State, and we give them the right to make regulations for that beach then, in terms of the old Act they do not have the right to make those regulations applicable mutatis mutandis also to the adjoining land which does not belong to them.

Now Scottburgh in Natal approached us and asked us to transfer the beach to them. We said it was not desirable that the State should transfer beaches to local authorities. But they wanted us to transfer it to them so that they could apply the regulations applicable to the beach also to the land adjoining it, something which they could not do in terms of the existing Act. Now all we ask here is that in this case we should be able to give the same right to a local authority, subject to the approval of the Administrator, where the beach does not belong to them, to frame regulations for that beach and to make the same regulations applicable to their own adjoining areas. It is very simple and very desirable and necessary that they should have the right to make those regulations, and I recommend it.

I have suddenly got an uneasy feeling because we have now had three Bills on which we agree with the Government! There is something, somewhere, wrong.

Four is the unlucky number.

However, I am not going to break the even flow of agreement and we will support the Government in regard to this Bill. In regard to Clause 1, I heartily agree that the powers of the local authority should be vested in a body such as the National Parks Board of Trustees. The Minister did not say a word about that, but I am sure he will not mind me replying to his thoughts. The position here, I take it, is associated with the Tsitsikama coastal reserve, where the local authority has certain powers, and it is quite clear that in this Bill we are giving those same powers to the National Parks Board of Trustees, and I think that is how it should be.

With regard to the second clause, in regard to Scottburgh, that is in my own constituency and it is true that great difficulty did arise because the area of recreation at the beach is not merely the area below high-water mark, the area in respect of which the Minister can make regulations; but the area of recreation is above high-water mark and there is no means of seeing precisely where the high-water mark is along that area of recreation. So when a certain amount of horseplay and roughness developed from time to time, and there have been minor infringements of the by-laws which called for some little action, and the civic authorities attempted to deal with this matter by means of warnings, because they did not really want to get people into trouble they found themselves in the difficulty that the people concerned very often said: What has it got to do with you? We are on the beach. Then the thing went a stage further and the municipality felt that they would have to take action and make an example of some of these people, but when they tried to bring a case to court, they found themselves caught on that precise point from the legal point of view, because the first thing the prosecutor wanted to know was where this misdemeanour took place; was it in the area on the foreshore governed by the Minister’s regulations or above the high-water mark in the area of jurisdiction of the local authority? To get evidence on a point of that kind is virtually impossible. After trying to institute prosecutions three or four times, they decided rather to drop the whole thing and representations were then made to the Department of Lands. I think the Scottburgh case probably triggered this provision in the Bill, but as the Minister has said, there are other local authorities which are more or less in the same position, and this provision will settle that position once and for all. I think this is a very good way out of the difficulty.

I just want to thank the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) for supporting this Bill. He said that there is on the South Coast a certain amount of roughness on the beaches. Well, with the hon. member for South Coast representing that area, what else can one expect? [Laughter.] The example is set there and if there is this roughness the only thing we can do is to bring a certain amount of civilization to that area, notwithstanding the hon. member who represents it. We hope the hon. member will now follow the good example we are setting, together with Scottburgh, and that he will also try to improve the conditions on the South Coast and bring a certain amount of civilization there.

Now that is what I get!