Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, may I be allowed to make a personal explanation? Yesterday, at question time, you asked me if I was prepared to reply to further questions put by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). While sitting in my seat I replied to you, sir, “No, Sir.” On that occasion I admit I should have risen, and I express my regret at not having risen in response to your request. I wish to assure you that no disrespect, as I think you will appreciate, was ever meant towards yourself as Speaker of this House, but rather the whole position was due to the circumstances which existed at that time. I did not rise and I was not prepared to answer any further questions put by members on the other side of the House, because I had already risen on 13 occasions in reply to supplementary questions which had been put to me arising out of the answer I gave to the original question.

With a view to what took place at question time yesterday, I wish to make some observations with regard to supplementary questions. Our rules make no provision for such questions, and strictly speaking no questions should be asked without previous notice. It is therefore entirely in the discretion of a Minister whether he will reply to a supplementary question or not, although, in practice, further questions, within due limits, are permitted in order to elucidate replies given by Ministers to questions of which notice has been given. It seems to me that hon. members sometimes forget that if a Minister does reply to supplementary questions, it is merely an act of courtesy on his part and not because there is any obligation on him to do so. I have on previous occasions deprecated the tendency of hon. members to put supplementary questions which are more in the nature of a cross-examination of the Minister than intended to elucidate his replies. Up to the present, however I have allowed hon. members very wide latitude, but I am afraid that supplementary questions have not always been kept within due limits. In future, whenever an hon. member asks a supplementary question and the Minister states that he is not prepared to answer supplementary or further supplementary questions I shall not allow further questions to be put without notice. I am sure that no Minister will refuse to answer a question genuinely put to obtain information if he can give that information.

I take it, from your ruling, sir, that if a Minister desires not to answer a supplementary question that your ruling is he will rise in his place and say he is not prepared to reply.

You now wish to cross-examine the Speaker.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

1. (1) such amendments as may be necessary to bring the existing regulations governing the flying of flags from the Houses of Parliament into conformity with the provisions of the Union Nationality and Flags Act, 1927; and
2. (2) the most suitable arrangements for the official hoisting of the flags of the Union from the Houses of Parliament on the day of the coming into operation of the Act;

the committee to have power to confer with a similar committee of the Senate, and to consist of Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Interior, and Messrs. Duncan, Krige, Sampson and Dr. van der Merwe.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I do not wish to raise any contentious questions—I suppose the Minister will be glad to hear it—only matters of local concern in my constituency. I am glad the Minister of Mines and Industries is also here. The Minister will remember that a few sessions ago I moved a motion in regard to the fishing harbours generally of South Africa. The House, at the time, was very sympathetic in regard to an investigation being made. The motion was agreed to and the Minister of Mines and Industries then appointed a commission to visit all the harbours on the South African coast. A very important report was then brought up by this commission. I then put a question to the Minister of Mines and Industries last session, and it appears that now this report has been filed the Government intends to throw the onus for carrying it out upon the different provincial councils in the Union. That is a point which has always complicated the development of our harbours, fishing harbours especially, on our coast line. Whenever you approach the Government on the subject they tell you the fishing industry is under the control of the provincial councils. I admit that constitutionally, that is so, but take the case of Hermanus harbour. The Hermanus harbour, by proclamation, has been placed under the administration of the Minister of Railways and Harbours, and I should say that any improvement in regard to that harbour should constitutionally rest in the Minister. I would like to know what is really now the constitutional position. The Minister has control of the foreshore. I believe he controls the harbour itself, and that he controls the class of boats that are allowed to be used for fishing purposes, but apparently he has not got the power, or it is alleged he has not got the power, to improve such a harbour. I should say that the inshore fishing industry of our country is of very vast importance, I should say, of national importance. The Government has taken laudable steps in the survey of our fishing grounds, and that work is still going on. But what we really need on our coast in order to develop inshore fishing, is proper shelter in the harbours for our fishing boats. There is no industry in South Africa which is carried on under more difficult conditions than the industry of the fishermen. They have to fight nature, you may say, from morning to night. They have to cope with a great deal of uncertainty, and with a great deal of danger, and the least we can do, as a Parliament, to assist them is to provide proper shelter. Unless they have it, they are practically confined to the ordinary rowing boat, which carries them only a little distance into the sea, and they cannot reach the really fertile fishing grounds. Hermanns is quite within reach of the most fertile fishing grounds in the world—the Agulhas Bank—but an ordinary rowing boat cannot reach these grounds, and you require a motor boat. Unless you have protection and harbour shelter for motor boats, it is impossible to go to the expense of acquiring such a boat. Companies and private individuals have endeavoured to invest a large amount of capital in acquiring motor boats, but before long it is found that in a storm those boats are dashed on the rocks, and all the capital is gone. The result is that no private individual or company will take the risk of investing any money in the acquisition of a motor boat. Let me tell the Minister that the propagation of such an industry as the fishing industry is not only of local importance, but of real national importance. Our fish exports, I think I am not wrong in saying, are to-day to the value of £400,000 per annum, where we never exported before, and we must recollect that the Australian waters are not blessed with fish, and the South American coast is also very poorly provided with them. We, as a country, are gradually establishing permanent markets in those countries. We are fond of speaking so much of the employment of European labour. In my constituency there must be at least 1,000 Europeans who are directly dependent for a livelihood on the fishing industry, and if this could be extended, and we could get some protection, it would mean an extension in regard to their employment. There are also, at one station in my constituency, coloured seamen owning boats. It is not a complaint against this Government, but a complaint I had against all previous Governments, even before Union, that the Government never realized the importance of our fishing industry in South Africa.

That is socialism you are asking for.

I am not going to.be deflected from this important subject by such a frivolous objection. I thought I was trying to do some good for those people for whom the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) ought to stand up in this House and plead for. It now appears that he takes little interest in them. I submit to the Minister it is of great importance that the public should know who is responsible for the building of these harbours. It is impossible to think that the provincial council will build a harbour to protect the fishing industry.

Why not private enterprise?

The provincial council is not the body to appeal to. The Government has already invested a fair amount of money in certain harbours to provide landing facilities.

made an interjection.

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) also wants to satisfy his socialistic conscience by trying to convey the impression that I am pleading socialism. I am not now going into that question. The railways and harbours are a very important business concern—in fact, it is the biggest we have—we have invested £160,000,000 of public money in them, and I think it is due to the public and to the importance of the fishing industry that this question should be cleared up, as to where we have to apply to in order to have this report carried out. I wish again to emphasize the question of the train service to Caledon. The Minister was good enough the other day to give me a satisfactory reply to my question, and I hope he will see that his officers carry out his good intentions. For a considerable time past we had the time for the journey to Caledon considerably curtailed, and we have been given the Garratt type of engine, which is a splendid engine for the purpose of mountain and hill climbing. We found that the time of the journey could be curtailed by the employment of that type. The engine power is there; but I am sorry to say there has been a consistent deficiency in the provision of proper saloons, especially for first-class passengers. The town of Caledon itself is a big health resort, the line serves health resorts on the coast, and the Railway Department should not by failure to provide facilities drive people to motor vehicles. By giving a quick service the department will gradually regain that type of passenger who is now almost forced to resort to the motor. The week-end service to Caledon is very badly catered for. A mixed train leaves Cape Town about 5.30 on Friday afternoon, and it is supposed to complete the 70 odd miles to Caledon about 1 o’clock on Saturday morning, but often it does not reach there until 4 in the morning. I am certain that if the Minister were to make that a purely passenger train he would obtain increased traffic. Then the department should make provision for better accommodation at Elgin station, which is very inadequate, especially in view of the tremendous development in the fruit traffic from Elgin and Villiersdorp, both of which Elgin station serves. I know the Minister has plans for the improvement of the station, and I hope this year the financial position will enable him to make the necessary improvements. The road motor service between Bot River and Hermanus is of more than local importance. It is impossible for the Caledon divisional council to maintain a road like that between Bot River and Hermanus when it has also to keep in order 700 or 800 miles of public road. The railway buses are very heavy, and the railway motor lorries convey a large quantity of goods. I believe in some seasons the railway buses carry 10,000 passengers. Every endeavour is being made by the department to make the motor service a success, and I have no complaint to make against the service except that my constituents would like it converted into a railway service. The divisional council finds it very difficult to obtain funds for road maintenance. When the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was in office he would not make a contribution to the roads, and the present Minister of Railways is following his bad example. The Minister and the railway board are adamant in refusing to make a contribution to the maintenance of the roads. The Bot River-Hermanus road is of national importance. The Minister might think that he could remove the motor service, but he dare not do it as the whole public of South Africa would not permit him to do it, this being a matter of national importance. Why should the Caledon divisional council bear the whole cost of the maintenance of the road for the general good of the whole of the country? The Railway Department does not pay divisional council rates. In an agricultural district like Caledon every public road must be kept in a good state of repair, and that imposes a heavy financial burden on the divisional council. The Minister should not forget that under the new arrangement between the divisional councils and the Cape Provincial Council no more loan money is given for public works like bridges and so on. So every pass over a mountain or bridge over a river has to be paid for by the divisional council. We are building a bridge costing £10,000 over the Palmiet River, and shortly we shall have to renew the Upington Bridge, and that will cost about £8,000. Where the Railway Department is carrying on a very big business like it does between Bot River and Hermanus, public opinion thinks that the department should bear some of the expense for the maintenance of the road. It is a matter of very great importance. I have seen the Minister privately about it, and also his Board, but they are very firm on the subject, and it is a matter of general national importance now that the Minister is embarking on the wise policy of extending the motor service right through the country. I have raised this matter publicly to give the Minister an opportunity of saying publicly whether he has changed his mind on this subject.

It is interesting to hear the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) blossoming out as a first rate socialist. We have heard of State harbours and now we hear of State roads. Perhaps soon we shall hear of State shipping advocated by him to use the State harbours. This Part Appropriation debate offers an opportunity to tackle matters which one may be unable to when we come to the main estimates, and so I want the Minister to go into one or two matters before he makes his budget speech. First. I would like to compliment the Government on the appointment of Mr. J. R. More as general manager of the railways. No doubt he will carry on the good work started by Sir William Hoy. In fact, perhaps he will go one better than the late general manager, as he has, I know, different ideas on many questions. If you had more personal contact between those employed on the railways, I am sure there would be less friction and be more economically run. Judging from the results generally and without going into the causes of the various recent accidents, I suggest from the point of view of the general public that the transportation system has not proved the success it was expected to be. It is a very expensive system, but whether it is a better one remains to be proved, and I hope the Minister will make a thorough inquiry into its working from the economical point of view, and the safety of the public. I would also like to urge upon the Minister the need for going into the bookkeeping system on the railways. There is a large amount of circumlocution as far as the salaried staff working is concerned, and there is a danger in this country of a repetition of the late war office scandals so far as delays to correspondence are concerned. There is certainly something very complicated and involved in the methods used, and I hope the Minister will inquire into it. The railways should be run as economically as possible, but a living wage should be paid to all those employed on the railway. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) dealt with matters connected with the railway workshops and I endorse his opinion with regard to the extraordinary anomaly whereby you continue to order coaches from overseas which should be made in our country. From the time when I came to South Africa I have known that we could build coaches cheaper and better than any which have been brought into the country. I hope our Government in future will place more orders with our own workshops. Even if it costs a little more money, it will be better than sending overseas. The Auditor-General brings forward figures as to the actual cost of certain main line coaches, and I think every member should look those figures up. If it be proved that the Auditor-General is correct, then the Minister must not be led aside from this policy in any shape or form. We have in this country the difficult problem of knowing what to do with our boys and the Government should do its utmost for young South Africans to go into the workshops and help to construct the rolling stock needed in the country. Somebody is evidently misleading the Minister. These figures appear in paragraph 4, page 200, of the Auditor-General’s report, which says—

I want the Minister to take some care about this. Why are wrong figures given to the Minister? Why is a mistake of £24,000 made in estimating the cost of 50 third class main line saloons and why import coaches which cost more money? Surely that is the worst form of economy for this country. All this shows the necessity for the Minister to make an enquiry as to what these persons are doing in wrongly advising him as to the probable cost of coaches built in South Africa by South Africans. Then there has been the criticism by various members of the Opposition, especially the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). We had the annual attack on the so-called civilized labour policy. I say “so-called” advisedly. The hon. member comes along in his usual robust way and says that wages are higher in South Africa than in any other country in the world, bar America. It is quite true, I acknowledge, that wages may seem high in this country, but we know that the real wages in this country are not higher than in any other country in the world, except one. I say that wages are not higher here than in any other part of the dominions. As a matter of fact, they are probably a little lower. When we consider wages, we must deal with real wages, that is what money will buy, not the amount of money paid. The sole idea of these statements about high wages in South Africa is that gentlemen like the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) may be able to say that the Government is extravagant and that the working expenses of the railways must be reduced, but we know perfectly well that they would not propose to reduce the pay of the high salaried officials, but only the salaries and wages of the lower grades of the service. If the Government of this country did anything in the way of reducing rates in the way that the commercial men would like, before they paid the employees what I regard as a living wage, it would be a scandal of the first magnitude. With all due respect to the opinions of hon. members on the Opposition benches, I think their remarks should not have been addressed to the present Minister so much as to the persons who advise him, and who remain in office, regardless of what Government is in power. You have got in some cases systematic overtime being worked, and hundreds of thousands of pounds being paid for the same, and you have also got piece work, and if the Minister really knew what piece work costs this country I am sure he would do something to bring about a change. I maintain that from the point of view of the State for a Government department to pay out these huge sums of money in overtime and in high bonuses upon piece work is scandalous, while you have unemployment existing in certain parts of the country, more especially in Cape Town, Johannesburg and other towns. While we have this unemployment it is a disgraceful thing for a State department to go on, year after year, paying hundreds of thousands of pounds for high piece work, bonuses and systematic overtime. Although unemployment is not so bad to-day as it was in 1922 and 1923, I do say that the Minister should put a stop to what I consider this unfair expenditure of money. My main object in speaking at this stage of the session is to deal to a greater extent than usual with what is called the civilized labour policy. One does not get the chance during the ordinary budget debate to go into proper details. I want to deal with what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) thought fit to refer to as “civilized loafing.” I think the hon. member by this time probably regrets that statement. Those men whom he saw standing at the side of the line were probably not loafing at all, but were doing what was necessary for the protection of their own lives owing to a passing train. I want to deal with this question from the point of view of a living wage. Some years ago a notable book was published in England by Mr. Philip Snowden, called “The Living Wage”, and he defines a living wage as follows—

I think it would be as well, now that we have a little time to spare, to inform hon. members what an authority of that sort regard as a living wage. It is interesting to know that the British Government, some years ago, passed a resolution in favour of paying a living wage to its own employees so as to be an example to outside employers. Mr. Snowden has some interesting remarks to make on the cost of poverty—

I can quote you figures showing what the cost of commodities was in those days. Here is a typical list of prices supplied to the press by a well-known authority in England, in 1912—

The point is this. These prices are just about one-half of what our prices are in South Africa to-day, and Philip Snowden said that £1 10s. a week was much too low a wage for any working man to receive at the time these prices prevailed in England. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), we know, believes in the law of supply and demand so far as labour is concerned, he does not think that any man should be allowed to bargain with his employer, but that he should take what his boss offers him, but I think every other member agrees that high wages are good economy, and low wages are bad economy. Later on, on page 167, Mr. Philip Snowden says—

These civilized labourers are in the main Dutch-speaking people of this country, probably seventy per cent. of them are. According to the standard laid down in England in 1893, we should never have contemplated starting any married man especially, on any Government work, whether unskilled or semi skilled, below what I regard as a living wage. We have no fault to find with the civilized labour policy, we endorse it entirely, and we want it carried on, but we do object to calling a policy civilized, when you are paying an uncivilized wage, and 6s. a day is an uncivilized wage. The other day in Johannesburg there was a deputation in regard to unemployment, and a reference was made to the low rate of pay paid by the Government on relief work, and it was described by one member of the deputation as “white kaffir wages.” That is a very significant phrase to employ, and we should not place ourselves in the position of allowing the Government to be accused of paying a “white kaffir” rate of pay. On 6s. a day it is impossible for a decent man to live in anything like decency. I would like hon. members to go to Woodstock and Salt River and see the conditions under which many of our fellow citizens are compelled to live. They do not want to live like that, they do not want to live in one room, but they cannot afford more than one room for themselves with their wives and their children at such urban centres as East London, Salt River or Durban. What are these men doing? They are not loafing, they are doing necessary work in the railway workshops. A civilized labourer on railway construction work can earn, with bonuses, 8s. or 10s. a day, but the men I am speaking of in the Salt River workshops have no opportunity of increasing their pay in any shape or form. Such a man starts as a casual labourer. He does not get any piece work or any overtime. This is the class of man I am pleading for. I know the Minister is not satisfied with the position of these men. I understand something is to be done for them, and I am very glad to hear it. The Minister knows it is not possible to procure one room under, say, £2 a month. Then there are the anomalies in regard to pay generally. You take the Salt River works—and that applies to other workshops—you will find there two working men, both labourers; I am not speaking of artisans. One may be called a skilled labourer. It is possible for him to earn up to 16s. a day, and by means of piece work and overtime, he can usually earn £30 or £35 a month. I do not begrudge him that. But the other labourer who may be a brother of his—at any rate, he is a brother South African—is working just as hard on work in many cases just as skilled, and he earns £7 15s. or £8 a month. I say that is a disgraceful thing. We should never have allowed these men to be started in urban centres in railway workshops where they are doing mechanical work, under 8s. 6d. a day. That is the minimum that such a man should get. That man is much worse off than a man on railway construction work. The children of some of these men are walking about Salt River, barefooted and under-nourished, and officials tell me collections have been taken in the works to pay doctors’ bills for these poor civilized labourers. Many of these labourers work with mechanics, and probably the labourer does far harder work than the mechanic, but of course he is in charge of the job. At the end of the month the mechanic has probably earned £45, and the man working alongside him gets £8. That is a scandal. There is no other country in the world where there is such a difference in the pay of the two classes of workmen to which I have referred, and as a rule a labourer is paid two-thirds of a mechanic’s pay. I do not want to pull wages down, but the system of piece work and overtime is a very expensive one, and is not economical. I would spread some of the money amongst the civilized labourers, who, as I have said, are working at an uncivilized rate of pay. The Minister will no doubt get figures which have been drawn up by his officials, which will state that although they start at that rate, later on they will get increased pay through promotion. These civilized workers are there in the place of the natives, and there is practically no opportunity of promotion for them. There is only a number of graded appointments on the railways; these men are classed as labourers, and can receive promotion only in the event of other men leaving the service or dying. Not more than 10 per cent. in two or three years do get promotion. You have to do something more for them than you are doing at present. I would suggest that if it is proved that these men are doing good work a scheme might be evolved whereby after three or six months a sliding scale of promotion might be adopted, say, of 3d. or 6d. additional per day. These men are being penalized for something they cannot help. Here is a case in point; it is that of a Dutch-speaking man who is married and has two children. I know him very well, and he has been to see me several times. He says he cannot live on his pay. He joined the service in July, 1925, and the only chance he has had to earn a bit of extra money—he never works piece work or overtime—was in December, 1927, when he did three months’ work as a shunter and received 8s. 6d. a day. He has applied many times for promotion, but he has received stereotyped replies signed by the mechanical engineer to the effect that the latter regrets there is no vacancy on the shunting staff, or that there is no vacancy in the shops. He also received a reply from the assistant general manager to the effect that there is no suitable vacancy at present that can be offered to him, but his name is registered and will be considered with other applications when a vacancy occurs. There is no complaint against this man whatever—he is a steady, good man, but he must continue to work for 6s. per day. The Minister must do something for that class of man, for they are in a majority. I want the Minister to adopt some such scheme as I suggest. In the urban centres especially there should be a proper starting wage of not less than 8s. 6d. a day. In country centres living is cheaper. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and others will say: “Where is the money to come from?” Well, that cry is played out. A man getting 8s. 6d. a day does not save it in a box, but spends it. He will buy 8s. 6d. worth of commodities, and it is far better economy to have a man being paid 8s. 6d. and spending that than his having only 6s. a day to spend, and his family suffering as a result. If he got more he might be able to buy his wife a decent dress for once or some additional comforts for his children. I am pleading for the workshop men in particular. Give these men some encouragement, and do not employ them for years and say there is no vacancy in the graded positions. If the Minister will do what I have requested him to do, he will be known as a humane man who did something for the poorer section of the community. I know that some well-fed, prosperous members on both sides of the House will object to these men getting more than their present wage, or object to their being paid 8s. 6d. a day, but I consider it gross impertinence on the part of men getting £1,000 a year, or considerably more than that, to suggest that another man can live on such miserable pay. Let the Minister carry on, not only his civilized labour policy, but also a policy of paying a civilized wage for civilized men. If he does that he will deserve the thanks of not only the men in the railway service, but also of the working classes throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker. I would like to refer to a matter which you would take up if you were on the floor of the House, and that is the railway rates from Ermelo to Glencoe Junction, which I believe are 5, 10 or 15 per cent. higher than the rates on other portions of the railway system. The people living along that line consider that they are thus handicapped and are not being fairly treated. The rates on branch lines, as a rule, are higher than on main lines, and unfortunately the railway administration holds that the line to which I referred, although it is 215 miles in length, is a branch line and therefore higher rates have to be paid for all traffic carried on it. However, I do not think that it can, with any sense of justice, be called a branch line. It serves a district just very much as the main line serves the districts through which it runs, but unlike most branch lines it does not stop at a dead end and it is therefore a through line to Delagoa Bay or Johannesburg. The people concerned have good cause for complaint. The matter has been brought before the railway administration on several occasions, and a few weeks ago Mr. Nel, a representative of the railway department, was sent to Dundee to discuss the subject with the local people. The whole question was argued, the representatives of the mercantile and farming communities receiving a courteous hearing from Mr. Nel, who said he would forward a report on the subject to headquarters. Can the Minister tell us if the people are to have any relief, for it is really a serious matter? The people find it difficult to compete with other centres. Residents of Dundee often send several miles away to Glencoe Junction for goods, simply because the goods are cheaper because main line rates apply to Glencoe but not to Dundee. The same thing refers to Vryheid, which Mr. Speaker represents. The extraordinary thing is that although branch line rates apply over the section of the railway from Ermelo to Glencoe Junction, on that portion of this so-called branch line which extends beyond Ermelo, main line rates are charged. This is an anomaly. I am told that in some parts of the Free State there are branch lines which are really branch lines, but the people living along them are fortunate enough to have their goods carried at main line rates.

Will you give me the particulars.

I have not the details, but the statement was made at the meeting at Dundee to which I referred and it was not denied by Mr. Nel. If that statement is correct, it very much strengthens the case I am putting up, but even if it should not be correct, I do not think there is a similar case where a line 215 miles in length is debited with these high branch line rates. The question of establishing central railway workshops has been under consideration for years and the committee of technical men who reported on the subject stated that in their opinion the workshops should be established at Salt River or in northern Natal. The time has arrived when the Minister should inform the House what is likely to be done in this respect. I know the matter bristles with difficulties, but the Minister has been in office for nearly four years and he must have some views on the subject. I now wish to refer to the old grievance of railway rates on coal. The rates were reduced a short time ago by a fractional amount on condition that the collieries also reduced the price of their coal, but the rates are still very high, being over 100 per cent. above those charged in 1914. Owing to the intense competition between the South African and the British collieries, South African coal is gradually being ousted from the markets in the East. Coal is being sold in India and other countries in the Far East at a very much lower price than it is possible to sell our coal at. The coal companies have done their best by reducing charges to a minimum, and they are even working in some cases without a penny profit, and I think the railway administration should meet the case by lowering the rates to enable companies to compete. They have lowered their prices but they are being gradually ousted from the markets. Unless help is forthcoming on the part of the railway administration, they will lose a large portion of their trade, and a certain amount of unemployment and slackness will be the result.

When anyone wants to get markets for Natal coal Natal members blackguard them.

The hon. member should not take the remarks made about his own mission to South America so much to heart. I know the hon. member has been criticized, and as far as I know, perhaps with some cause. But I am not prepared to condemn the hon. member because he says he is going to make a full explanation, and an inquiry is to be made. In the meantime we shall suspend our judgment, but it is unfair to say that anyone is standing in the way of markets for Natal coal being extended because of criticism of the contract the hon. member entered into, and his conduct in the matter. I hope the Minister will be good enough to take these matters into consideration.

I want to congratulate the Minister on his road motor policy, and the success it has been. I understand there are 9,500 miles open to-day, and that 600,000 tons have been carried and £50,000 taken in passenger fares. Has the time not come when the Railway Department of the Union Government should so far alter the Act of Union so that the Government can take over all the roads of the country? You will have to wait a long time before you get the provincial governments to make roads in South Africa, and if you take over the roads you will be able to considerably improve the motor services, which are doing so much for the development of South Africa. I know farmers are getting … When the Minister has finished chatting—

The hon. member may proceed.

I am proceeding, although the Minister does not take much interest in what comes from this part of the House.

I was getting information on the points you have raised.

Oh, the Minister has come up, like a fish, to that particular fly. The Minister will always have a good deal of trouble unless he gets his colleagues to get the provincial bodies to hand over the roads. I am told the Labour Department is going into some other departments. They have been going in for sugar estates and public works, and I hear they are now going in for road building, and the roads are going to be for the Railway Department. I say to the Minister let the Labour Department stand out and let the Railway Department take that up. They are the most prominent department making roads to-day.

What about the Native Department?

They are not making roads at present, as far as I know. In my constituency we want a certain motor service, and the Railway Department is prepared to carry it out, but they cannot get through the Modder River and over a particularly bad bit of sandy road out of Bloemfontein. All the provincial councils are wrong, and the time will come when they will be kicked out of South Africa. That is as certain that as that the sun will rise in South Africa. If a plebiscite was taken to-morrow they would finish.

I think Natal is getting tired.

I want the Government to take its courage in both hands, and allow the Railway Department to become a transportation department for all South Africa.

Certainly not.

They are carrying 9,000,000 of highly rated stuff to-day and getting £3,000,000 for it, and 70,000,000 of low rated stuff and getting £40,000,000 for it, roughly. Where we have got the plums the motor people are coming along and taking them, and the State has got to carry on with non-paying stuff, and there is only one end to that; the railways are going to lose a lot of money. My hon. friend says the State railways are overcharging. It is not so. The fat stuff is being collared by the motor people today, the stuff which is carried at a high rate, and the Government has to carry all the bad stuff at a low rate, agricultural stuff and minerals and coal. If the Government will not go into a system of transportation and take charge of all transport in South Africa, and not allow any other people to move a wheel in transportation unless they have a certificate, will the Minister agree that we pass a law saying any man carrying transport should come in a common carrier, and carry everything that is offered him. Does the Minister agree with that?

I do.

I am very glad to hear it. If they did that they will have to carry the low-rated stuff as well as the high-rated stuff, and there is only one way to do it, and that is the State socialistic way that trams, motor buses and cartage people in South Africa shall come under a transportation system as was done in the war. This House has not yet been educated to that. The time will come when South Africa and every other country will say, “All our transport is going to be done by the State.” My hon. friend says “no.” I want to bring this serious thing to the notice of the House that our railways are in danger, are losing money, and if our railways lose money it will come on the shoulders of the taxpayers, the consumers, the farmers, the producers and merchants, and rates will go up instead of coming down.

And the railway workers.

Of course, they are consumers. There is no bigger consumer than the railway worker.

Wages will come down.

Wages will come down in any case if the railways are not very careful. Speaking for myself, I say that the Minister must also take into consideration the reducing of rates. People in my constituency are calling out for a reduction of rates, particularly the farmers. The farmer has a fairly good time, and his stuff is carried cheaply, but other rates must be reduced. The cost of living is not coming down in South Africa, but is going up. We must get it down. I want to congratulate the Minister upon his advertising campaign in England, and the man he has sent there, and the enormous amount of good he is doing. This campaign is attracting men to South Africa, and these men in some cases are putting capital into the country. It is not much good appointing a man to go to London to get people to this country who, when they get here, have got no hotels to go into. Mind you, these Cape Town hotels are, I think, the worst in the world.

Some of them.

Yes, some of them. Only a few days ago a letter appeared in the London “Times” complaining about this very matter. We have no hotels here that will accommodate the class of men we are getting out. Let the Minister take his courage into his hands and build a State hotel. The Minister has the finest site in the southern hemisphere here, facing Table Bay. Look at it to-day, it is a railway yard. It is being used for nothing, a site that I should think must be worth millions of pounds, if you take it right along. It is used for coal dumping, for dirt. How the people of Cape Town stand for that I don’t know, but, of course, the people of Cape Town are not a very progressive community when it comes to the civic conscience. They are rather behind the rest of South Africa when it comes to the civic conscience. They would not stand for this in the north or in Durban, or in Port Elizabeth. There is a want of accommodation in this particular town to-day. Not only do tourists find it, but members of Parliament also find it.

Hear, hear.

I know the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) might be against it, but, after all, we cannot always wait for the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). I do not think the South African party would be against the Minister on this particular point. I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) would be alone, wasting his sweetness on the desert air. I want to ask the Minister this question, why does this Government go out of its way to place its orders in Germany? I know the cry. The cry is, “We can buy cheaper in Germany than we can in England,” but I put this to the Minister, and to my friends the Labour Ministers, who are still friends of mine—I put it to them this way, take the wages paid in Germany today and take the wages paid in England. Are we playing the game to the English working classes when we go to the cheapest market? Why not go to Japan? Why not go to India? We have always taken up the line that we must pay a fair wage, and have a high standard of living, and one thing this Government could do would be to say, “We shall not buy from any country unless the wage conditions are high.” That would be a fair line to take, and I think the majority of people in South Africa would stand behind you. We in the Free State are producing a large amount of maize to-day. The Germans are not buying it; it is being bought in London. In the Western Province your fruit is not being bought in Germany but is being bought in England. If you want to raise money today you do not go to Germany, but you raise it in London. I know that if I a can sell a lot of stuff to-morrow to a particular tailor, I will go and buy my suits from that particular tailor rather than from the man with whom I do no business at all. We are beginning to forget that the British people—and by the British people I mean the people of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales—are to-day the best customers we have got. If they were eliminated, this country would starve. You cannot sell one apple or one peach in America. You can buy all the American engines you like, but as soon as you send your fruit over to America, she says, “I won’t take it.” She puts an embargo upon it because she says you have got the fruit fly. To-day the railway people are spending large sums on cold storage, and are running your fruit down as cheaply as possible. We do that for the markets of England. The people of England cannot buy stuff unless they can sell stuff. They cannot buy your fruit unless they can sell you something in return, unless they can sell somebody else something. The Americans are a very nice people, a very good and a very charming people, and we are glad to see them when they turn up in these big boats and are walking about Muizenberg, but they do not spend any money in South Africa. They do not deal with you, except to sell you rotten motor cars.

They buy your diamonds.

They do not buy your diamonds. Your diamonds are bought in England and distributed from England. They do not buy your diamonds, and what is more, my friends will become very old before the Americans buy your diamonds and you get a market in America for your diamonds. The same with your wool. You cannot get away from facts. They are certain hard and basic economic facts. England to day is the greatest buyer we have. We have to take her by the hand just as our farmer friends would be particularly courteous to any butcher who buys their fat stock.

They take 70 per cent. of our exports.

Of course they do, and that is why I want us to take their stuff back. I was not born under the Union Jack, I was born under a republican flag, but that is not the point. I am taking up the hard business point of view. Unless the dominions, who are selling their stuff to England, help England the other way round, things are going to go wrong. Take tobacco. We are selling our tobacco to England because they give us a privileged tariff. Without that, America would wipe us off the face of the earth. It is the same with our wines. If we ever have a big wine business, it will be due to this preference they give us. They want something in return, and we should give something in return. Do not let party politics come into it. It is a bigger thing than party. Parties come and parties go. It is a question of South Africa. Even the Minister of Labour knows I am right. Parties will go and he will go with them. I have deliberately made this speech this afternoon. I know it will be unpopular in some quarters; that does not matter a bit. I know the people with whom it will be unpopular know in their hearts I am speaking the truth. I know the farmers in the Free State are not against placing orders in England. We recognise up there that our best customers are the English people, and we are prepared to give them something back because we know the more they sell us the more we will sell them. I ask the Minister, who before long will probably be making another trip overseas, I ask him to go into this question in England and see if he cannot place more of his orders there. I have nothing against the Germans. I wish to God 100,000 of them would come and settle in South Africa. Nothing would please me better; they would make the best colonists we could get. But I do want the Minister and his Government to endeavour to buy as much stuff in England for our requirements as he possibly can.

It looks as if we are reaching the end of the debate, and I have waited and listened to hear whether the other side of the House would say anything about one of the most important acts of the Government recently, viz., the shipping contract. It seems, however, that hon. members opposite are preserving a sworn silence about it. As far as I know, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) let the remark slip, with reference to this matter, that the Government had shown a great service to South Africa is making the contract. We are not accustomed to have great benefits to South Africa passed by in silence, especially when it is a contract concerning millions of pounds, and where the welfare of the country largely depends on it. We now have an agreement with the Union Castle Company consisting of 41 clauses with all sorts of minute details. I do not want to go into particulars, because it would require expert knowledge, and I make no claim to that. It is, however, striking that the other side has made no criticism, either good or bad. I thought that they would probably wait for the Main Estimates, but I doubt if there will be an opportunity then, because the agreement comes into force after the 31st of this month, if it is not rejected by Parliament, in which case it would lapse. I am sorry that the Government did not introduce a motion so that it would be possible to clearly hear what members opposite thought of it. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) spoke on the subject, but although he called attention to the matter by so doing, nothing more came from the Opposition side than an observation by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). It is clear that the Opposition does not want to criticize, and is satisfied with the contract; it does not feel called upon to praise a good deed of the Government, and it therefore remains silent. I have read through the contract a few times with interest, and I think there is much in it deserving of praise, and the Opposition will admit this, but, on the other hand, there is more than one aspect of the matter which is a little disturbing. When the Opposition say nothing about such a contract, then I feel uneasy, especially as they sit there as the mouthpiece—as is generally admitted—of large capitalistic bodies like the Union Castle Company and the Chamber of Mines, and, if they are silent, then it is clear that there is something seriously wrong. There is not the least doubt that if we compare the agreement with the last one, the Opposition will also have to admit that better conditions have been obtained than formerly. Some freights are lower. There will be a better service, more provision is being made for cold storage, and a certain protection is being provided for small shippers. The Government deserves praise, and it is clear that the Opposition cannot criticize adversely. There are, however, a few aspects of the matter which cause me great concern. We know the history of the Union Castle Company. They have during the course of years always succeeded in killing any healthy competition. Various companies have tried to compete, but the Union Castle Company has always squeezed them out. There was, e.g., the case of the Houston Line, the struggle which went on from 1920 to 1925 with the Holland-South Africa Line, and also with the German line, and now again last year the attempt of an independent company in which Sir Robert Thomas was interested.

But they can compete.

If the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) thinks that, after this agreement, it is possible to compete, then he is more than an optimist. There is no doubt that it kills any healthy competition, particularly as the Union Castle Company has concluded an agreement with the eleven other members of the conference lines. It will at most be possible to compete on a small scale. By virtue of the agreements, the Government may not place more than 12½ per cent. of its sea-freight with privately chartered ships, or with another line, and, as regards the carriage of fruit, it is made almost impossible by the agreement to carry it in other ships than those of the Union Castle Company and the eleven other lines. Although I knew that there were many difficulties, I hoped that this Government, which is fighting hard against any monopoly (excepting, of course, State monopolies, because they are in the people’s interests) would avoid entering into a contract by which the people would be exploited, because there is no doubt that the Union Castle Company is bleeding South Africa terribly.

Oh, come now!

Even the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) will learn that he is being bled by them if he makes careful enquiry. I have listened attentively to the figures of the hon. member for Troyeville, and it really was worth while. He advocated a State shipping line. This is perhaps not the time to start it, even if it may become necessary later. It is not necessary to go immediately from one extreme to the other. We might possibly find a shipping line which supports the State, and need not immediately resort to State shipping. When I read the report of the Board of Trade and Industries about the shipping contract, I felt encouraged. The Board recommends that no grants should be given except for the development of a merchant shipping fleet registered and controlled in South Africa. It may be possible that this recommendation frightened the Union Castle Company, and that they therefore proposed these favourable conditions. I am deeply sorry that we cannot decide that, because we do not know enough about all the facts of the negotiations between the Government and the company. We shall now have to wait another ten years for an opportunity of debating a change. It is true that the contract says that it can be denounced after five years if the Government so wishes or if a Bill is introduced which is detrimental to the contract, but there is no doubt that it will last for ten years, and that the Union Castle Company, with the other companies who have entered into an agreement with it, will dominate South African shipping during the next ten years. No healthy competition in shipping will be possible. The conference lines will be stronger and more powerful than before, and more and more will render healthy competition in shipping matters impossible. The matter is of very great importance, and I am sorry that the Government did not see its way to do more in the direction of our some day being freed from the dominance of that big body. It would also be of importance in the development of our trade externally. We are encouraging our manufactures by granting protection. Our inland market is very small, and has not been built up long, and we must look to potential markets abroad, especially on the east coast of Africa. I find in the report on markets by the Board of Trade and Industries that they emphasize that we must extend our trade relations in that direction, and that it is necessary to provide for this in the shipping contract so that we get proper connection with the markets in Africa. It is said that the natural export markets must be looked for in the hinterland of Africa, and that efforts should be made to develop connections with Kenya and Tanganyika. The freight from South Africa to the base harbours of the conference lines is higher in comparison with those from Europe to the east coast harbours. That will continue to hinder our trade with those parts. Efforts will, of course, be made in Europe to retain the market. When I got hold of the contract, I looked for anything encouraging our exporting to the east coast harbours, but not a word is said about it. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said that we must buy our requirements in England even if we pay thousands of pounds more than by buying in Germany, because the German workman earns much less than the English workman. Does he want us to appoint a wages board to find out where we may buy? He says that England is our best customer. I do not doubt that is so now. I think, however, that it is not beneficence on England’s part. The great object in developing our country and other colonies was surely in order to advance the trade of England, and this also applies to-day, even if we are dominions. The great object of the constitution of the British empire is advanced by people who are not so much inspired by patriotism as by the development of capitalistic ideal. The object undoubtedly still is to keep the dominions as a market for the manufactories in England and on the continent and to get as great a preference as possible as regards the purchase of our produce. What, however, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) does not sufficiently consider is that although it is a fact that England is our best customer—although a great deal merely goes via England to other countries—other countries have never yet had a proper chance to do business with South Africa. The 3 per cent. imperial preference has always hitherto closed the door, and now we are beginning to develop other markets for the first time. I just want to express the fear that this agreement with the Union Castle Line and the other 11 conference lines will make it still more difficult to develop markets on the continent on a sound basis. The harbours of origin of all the lines are, of course, chiefly in Great Britain, and, as long as the Union Castle Company has the power over all shipping to South Africa, there is little hope for the future of our trade development with other countries. I even understood that an Italian company had made an offer to run a line down the east coast to Cape Town and thence to the Argentine. I do not know if it is true, but the Minister can possibly tell us what happened. The connection with the Argentine is also important to us. It is just agreements and monopolies of this kind that make it impossible for South Africa to get markets in other countries, because a tremendous advantage is given in that way. There is another point in connection with the Union Castle Line, that the line in the past has indeed carried much freight to and from South Africa, but it is not a company registered here. It is a company which is very little concerned about the welfare of the country, because it, of course, merely wants to make as much profit as possible, and I do not blame it. If an agreement could be made with a company more South African in character, our boys on the training ship “Botha” would have a better chance of going to sea. At present one or two only are taken on as an act of grace. We know that extremely capable men in South Africa apply in vain to the Union Castle Company, who prefer to import employees. It is one of the very points raised in the report of the Board of Trade and Industries, that if we had such a merchant shipping fleet the boys that are being trained on the “Botha” will get a chance to show what they have learned. We are now, alas, bound for another ten years. The Union Castle Company, with the other companies working hand in hand with it, is going to extend its powers for the next ten years, and will get an even tighter grip than before on South Africa. We can be satisfied about various points in the contract, but it is a fact that the Union Castle Company has succeeded in beating competitors of the conference lines out of the field, and, in five years, the competitors will be so smashed, that the Union Castle Line has the power and will be able to raise the prices here and there. In ten years the position will be still worse, and the Union Castle Line will dig its talons still deeper into our country. Even then if in existing circumstances—we do not know all the circumstances, unfortunately—the Government has arranged matters yet, the agreement is still extremely dangerous for the future of South Africa. I do not know whether it is possible for the Government in the meantime to still give its serious attention to the matter and see whether, before the agreement comes into force, something cannot still be done to save the position. I see, of course, that there is a stipulation that if we introduce legislation that handicaps the Union Castle Line, it can denounce the contract. I hope that we shall pass legislation which will possibly make it a little more difficult for them, and do something to get a company which is registered and controlled here, a company which will be able to free us from the powers that have exploited us in the past, and will certainly do so again in the future.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and ask why we should spend so much money in foreign countries in the purchase of railway locomotives. These foreign manufacturers are assisted by bounties which enable them to enter into unfair competition with the British manufacturer. Further, it is not always true economy to buy in the cheapest market. For example, right through the railway history of South Africa there has been an absence of complaint, either in regard to quality or long life, against engines from the United Kingdom. The same cannot be said with regard to the engines bought from Germany and America. The Minister knows to-day that we have some British-made engines which are efficiently working and are 37 years old. In one case we have an engine working to-day which is 42 years old, British-made and still going strong, and so I say economy is not measured by the price one pays for the article. It is the quality that counts. What is the experience of South Africa regarding American-made engines? The Minister knows some of these engines have been scrapped after 12 years, only one-third the life of British-made engines. I say the Minister is showing false economy, and the country will suffer by it. Why should we go past Great Britain, the best friend South Africa has? Where do we go for all our many loans, except to Great Britain? Australia tried raising money in America, but to their sorrow they only effected one loan and were made to pay through the nose for it. Seventy per cent. of our trade goes to Great Britain. Speaking as a farmer, our maize and wool and wattle bark finds England the principal buyer. In addition to that, take the dominion preference which we enjoy. Surely that counts for something, and should induce us to trade with the country that is giving us a dominion preference which is bulking largely in our development. Where would South African tobacco be without this preference, and our export of fruit, jam and sugar? I think it is unreasonable. For the benefits we are getting, the Government ought to think in this way, that one good turn deserves another. If we had no markets in the United Kingdom, South African producers would starve. I hope the Government will look at the position from this point of view, that it is not always economy to buy a cheap article. If one pays dear and has the quality, that is the cheaper article in the end. The farming community appreciate very much indeed the Railway Department developing our road transport. I would ask the Minister if the time has not arrived when the Government should contribute to the four provinces in regard to the maintenance of roads on which road transport is operating. The Minister is making a profit on some services, on one service it is £3,000 per annum, and surely if they are making a profit a fair contribution should be made in regard to the upkeep of the roads. If the roads, as in Natal, are earth roads, and not macadamized, then the heavily-loaded motor lorries of the railways are cutting them up, and it makes the cost of maintenance and repairs greater. It would be more economical for the Government to make a contribution to the maintenance of these roads. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) dubs the provincial councils as “rotten” I do not know why he uses that opprobrious term. In Natal they lead the way as far as road making is concerned, and in my province they maintain thousands of miles of roads. Your motor services are carrying out the work efficiently on these roads, and they are running to schedule time, and the transport rate at which they carry the farmers’ produce is not unreasonable, but the provincial council is hard put to it to bear the expense of the roads for these services which render it necessary for them to indulge in mechanical road-making processes. They are making at the rate of one mile a day. Some of these plants will make a smooth earth road complete at the rate of a mile a day. The time has arrived when the Railway Department should make a contribution, and the provincial council should not be called upon to maintain all these roads on which the Government are making a profit. It will certainly be a greater benefit to the farmers if a contribution is made towards the maintenance of these roads, and the keeping of them in proper order. Further, I hope the Minister will extend the road transport services in my constituency in particular, because it is a constituency which is the home of the great wattle industry. That industry is going ahead by leaps and bounds, and the eyes of the world are on South Africa in regard to this development. Last year the new area planted in wattles amounted to 30,000 acres, which, in seven years’ time, when it reaches maturity, will realize 500,000 tons of timber and bark. The wattle bark is exported to England. America uses only a small quantity. They use the South American bark which, I understand, is fast petering out, and the world is looking to us to supply the deficiency. I hope the Minister will take this into consideration, as well as considering the question of a contribution to the provincial council for the good work they are doing, and in that way helping them and the farmers in maintaining these roads for transport.

As a fruit grower, I wish to express my appreciation on behalf of the fruit-growers, whom I represent, on the fact that the Minister has entered into a contract which will enable us to send off our stuff without delay. I am pleased the Minister has concluded that contract. I am sorry that the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), when expressing appreciation of it, qualified his remarks by saying the Minister ought have made an effort to start our own shipping line. I take the Minister to be a better business man than that. The contract which has been made with the company will ensure the speediest lifting of our perishable products. I also wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) in his plea that the Minister should, when placing his orders oversea, consider not merely the matter of cheapness of supplies, but he should also bear in mind that we should buy from our best customer. It is not a matter of politics. It is a matter of nothing but business. I may tell the Minister this, that a large number of your farmers, your producers, not men like the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), who produce nothing but speeches, but men who wish to find a market and have found a market, know that the best market for most of our products is to be found in England. We wish to impress that upon the Minister, that we consider that he must look at it as good business to buy from your best customers. Then there are a few smaller matters to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention. For the export of our apples and pears which have got to be sprayed with arsenate of lead to keep them free from codling moth, these products have now to be cleansed before they are allowed into the British market, and we have got to use hydrochloric acid for that purpose. Why should hydrochloric acid be carried at rate No. 1 while other chemicals, which you use in fruit production, are carried at rate No 7? I am sorry to find that to the representation made to the Administration by the Cape Orchard Company for a lower rate, the reply of the department was very unsympathetic and held out no hope of a lower rate. For the conveyance of hydrochloric acid from Firgrove to Orchard Siding, about 120 to 125 miles, the charge is 4s. 3d. per 100 lbs. You will have the stuff carried by motor-lorries if you maintain that high rate. There is no justification for singling out that particular article for such a high rate. Your chemical requirements for your fruit production, dip, etc., are all carried at the lower rate, No. 7, and why should this hydrochloric acid be carried at rate No. 1? I also wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the question of derailments on the railway. Last Sunday there was a serious derailment on our place where two petrol tank trucks went off the line and also three coal trucks. In conversation there with certain of the officials I was informed that in that neighbourhood this was the third derailment and that within 10 days previously there had been a derailment close to the spot also of a petrol tank.

Is that at Hex River?

That is south of Sandhills. There are a good many of these derailments taking place to-day which the public do not hear of. We all wish to have the safest railway conveyance that we can possibly get, and that is the only reason why I am bringing up this matter. I would like to ask the Minister whether provision is made for an examination by some responsible official in the area immediately after there has been a derailment. We know that the first thing your breakdown gang will do, after they arrive on the spot, is to clear the line so that the traffic can be resumed. It, naturally, takes some little time for the gang to be collected, but once they are there they are very quick about their work. The Railway Department should have some responsible official in each area who would visit the place immediately so as to ascertain the cause of the derailment. The Minister knows that the public are alarmed at the accidents which have taken place, and they are the more alarmed because they believe that a good many of these accidents are happening to-day which they know nothing about. I also wish to refer to the dismissal of labourers, or, rather, let me put it this way, the dispensing with the services of some of the labourers on the railway. The complaint is made by your poor, unfortunate labourers, mostly coloured, that having reached the age of 60, their services have been dispensed with. I had an instance just a little while ago where one who had been in the regular railway service for 27 years, received a month’s notice of dismissal without any gratuity or pension.

The House has dealt with that kind of case.

Yes, but these things are taking place still before the Act will come into operation. I have another case which was reported to me about a fortnight ago, where one who had been in the railway service since 1897 had his services dispensed with at a moment’s notice, again an unfortunate coloured person. He has reached the age of 60. What must such a poor person do? In many of these instances, where they are not entitled to a pension, some of them should have been kept on a little longer. It has been the practice in the past, where a person is not entitled to a pension, to keep these men in the service as long as possible. I think that these cases require a little more consideration than they have been getting. Most of those I have come in contact with are coloured employees.

We do it for all classes of employees.

It affects the coloured employees more, because in the grade they are in they are not entitled to pension. These people are being dismissed up to within a few days of the new Act coming into operation. Then there is another matter, and that is the charges made by the Railway Department to land owners when they want a crossing or culvert or something of that kind. These charges have grown enormously. I will give an illustration of applications for two crossings less than three miles apart. In 1913 there was an application for a crossing just this side of Worcester. The estimate was £22 odd. The railway had to provide everything, and it was constructed for £17 odd. About a year ago there was an application for a crossing about 3 miles off. It was really to shift an old crossing for about 75 yards. The work was easy. There was no banking up to be done, and they had all the material. The estimate for the cost was £42 odd. What justification was there for such an estimate of cost when within a short distance from there an entirely new crossing was put up, where the Government had to provide everything, for £17.

Wages have doubled.

I want the Minister to explain this. Even if wages have doubled, the cost is enormous just for that little bit of work. If I were the contractor, I would do the work for £7 10s. and make a profit out of it. If the applicant for the crossing had simply made his deposit, he would have got precious little money back.

He would have had the difference between the actual cost and the deposit.

But your actual cost would be very much bigger. I will take another case. They put in one single gate in the town of Worcester. And I may say that the Railway Department puts in a very poor class of gate. There are two kinds of tubular gates, good ones and bad ones, and, unfortunately, the Railway Department has got the bad one—the kind of gate that any farmer with a little bit of knowledge discarded years ago. For the putting in of this gate, what did it cost the applicant? Close upon £16. It is only the work of the ordinary labourer with a little supervision. There is another matter which I know the Minister is aware of, but the demand is still there, and that is the need for more housing accommodation for railway employees at Worcester, where the Administration has the ground. That is absolutely essential at Worcester. You would have your breakdown gangs together very much sooner if you had your cottages together, instead of, as now, your employees dispersed all over the town. Then you want housing accommodation at some of the outside stations, particularly at De Doorns, where there is no provision at all for your coloured employees. I wish the Minister would give these matters his attention. Let me again express my appreciation of the fact that a contract has been entered into which will ensure the lifting of all our perishable products.

It would be the height of ingratitude not to start by complimenting the Minister and those associated with him upon having brought the railway undertaking from what it was to what it is, but we know very well how much good work has been done and how satisfied the country has been with what has been accomplished. If we offer some criticism it is not in any sense of finding fault, but because we represent constituencies which have certain matters to bring to the notice of the Government. There is no fulsomeness on my part in regard to what I have said. I represent what is very largely a railway constituency which feels that at least we are getting a fair deal. All recognise, too, the miserable state in which the whole service was left. What it would have become under the last administration, goodness only knows. It was rescued just in time. Everything was made to depend on economy expressed in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. It is astonishing that anyone successful in their own business should have got a public service into the state in which it was found four years ago. Of course it was due to that mad idea of free trade—to have simply import and export goods, the country needing nothing else. We have got a long way on the road of improvement, but there is still a great deal to do. I am glad to see that Rhodesia is spending four millions in the next three years on railway development, and this must react favourably on our own system, which has now been so largely developed. I hope we will have a connection from Messina right into Rhodesia so that we can offer facilities to bring its products to the coast. We want to see them join on with us in business instead of going to the other sides of the continent. The Ministry were wisely advised when they embarked on a big railway programme, not only for the sake of the future of the country, but also for the employment it gives, a fact which has been rather lost sight of. I was in one of our workshops at Pretoria recently, and it was apparent even to a layman that establishment was not being used to its fullest capacity. When I put some leading questions to those who were employed, and elicited the opinion that more could be done in coach building, and they were not working at the fullest possible efficiency and strength. I hope the Minister will make a note of it. There is an outstanding requirement in regard to Pretoria railway workshops. There was some sort of understanding that a special enquiry would be made into the conditions under which men worked in the open air in all weathers and in how far that was avoidable. Skeleton sheds as erected for shows would give sufficient shelter. The present system interferes with the poorer men engaged on piece work. If the weather is bad and they cannot work outside, their work ceases, and their pay ceases too. With regard to the importation of coaches, I put a question the other day, and the way in which they are shipped out to this country. The custom has been, I understand, to ship coaches in three sections so as to get them in and out of the holds; the consequence is that these sections are bolted up together, but shake loose, and are frequently under repair. If we had a system whereby the cost of each particular coach could he charged up it would be found that the imported coaches cost a lot of additional money. Coaches made in this country are built right through from end to end, and therefore stand up to their work three times as long as the imported article. I recognise the present necessity which has to be met, and must make allowances. We should be looking forward and making every provision so that we shall not have to send orders unnecessarily to Europe. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) reaps the advantage of local employment because of people purchasing more of his goods, although he will not quite see it that way. The more people employed, the better for the whole country. With regard to the contract with the Union-Castle line, I can quite see we have lost valuable time—four years. I am only hoping that the company will not catch us on the mail question. I sincerely hope the mail contract will be signed contemporaneously with the freight contract, otherwise we may have this company saying, “What you escape in freight you will pay on the mail.” Passenger rates may be again put up to cover any shortfall. We are in the hands of a combination which has tentacles reaching to every part of the world. This country has paid twice over for every ship the Union-Castle Company owns, all increases in watered capital and all the increases in the value of the shares, and now for ten years we are to continue in serfdom to them. At the head of this trade is one who has a wide-reaching influence through all shipping, and the people have to pay for it. I am not entirely in favour of State shipping out and out, and this is not the time to talk about it, but if one turns up the discussions which took place in Australia recently, it will be seen that they agree up to a point that they made seven millions profit, and scored tremendously by having competition; but where they failed was that State employment was taken advantage of. The “Sydney Sun” says that although £500,000 a year was latterly lost over the Government steamship line, that sum probably saved the country millions through keeping down the rates of the Conference Lines. Our Union Government might take into partnership those who know how to run a steamship line. If it had courage it could go into partnership with a company to build eight up-to-date steamers, the Government to provide half the capital, and the shipbuilders the other half, the latter to manage the line. Then I think success would be achieved, but it is too late to talk about that project now. We shall have to talk to the Government for a long time before we can convince it of the advantage of a partly State-owned steamship service. I am not going to weary the Minister, for I think the railway men receive fair treatment when their grievances are put forward, and after the speech of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow), it would be waste of time to labour the questions. I hope the Minister will get the credit as well as the success he deserves.

There are just one or two points in connection with civilised labour on the railways that I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. It is no longer an experiment, and we congratulate the Minister and the Government on the policy of using civilised labour and on the success they have had. As it is no longer an experiment, we must just try to make the lot of the people a little more tolerable. In the first place, I am thinking of their housing. When they live in the villages they get, I think, an allowance of 1s. a day. They can certainly not get a house for 1s. a day, and in some cases it is impossible to get a house. I think it is the duty of the Government to build special houses for these people. A number of them can possibly be used to build houses. It is sad to see that a man with a family cannot take them with him because the rent of a house is too large. The second point is the allowance in fever districts. In the town of Pietersburg, e.g., they get no allowance, but the people who drive motor lorries must go from there to fever districts and yet get no allowance. During the rainy season, they are sometimes detained a few days in the fever areas and get fever, but there is no allowance for them. Other officials of the department who come to those districts do get an allowance. I do not say that they should get the full allowance, but I think it is fair that when they are sent to unhealthy parts they should get something. The third point is about leave. We find that the people work for years without any leave. They merely get 14 days to go away, but without pay. If a married man who left his family behind gets leave to go home, he does not get the least payment. I think that if these points are settled there will be great satisfaction amongst the civilised labourers.

I wish to support the proposal that a turning basin should be provided at the port of East London. I do not wish to go into the technicalities of the matter, but I understand it will not be a very expensive undertaking, as most of the dredging can be done by the existing dredger at times when it is not at work on the bar. The Minister should realise the interest now being centered on that portion of the Eastern Province. The very bitter lesson South Africa is learning from the drought is focussing attention on those districts which have a very abundant rainfall. It is wonderful how people from other parts of the Union are being attracted to the eastern portion by the certainty of not having their efforts wiped out by drought. The production of the Eastern Province is increasing by leaps and bounds. East London will not stand still, and fruit, maize and other products are going to bulk very much larger in the future than they have in the past. The Minister will be studying the best interests of the whole of the country if he will inquire whether the turning-basin scheme is justified or not. I sincerely hope that the request put forward by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), will receive due consideration by the Minister and his department.

As a representative from the north, I want to express my appreciation for what the Minister has done for the fruit exporters in the shipping contract. They will benefit by it. We feel that the Minister of Railways and Harbours is always very sympathetic to the fruit farmers, and we appreciate it, but sympathy is often a very bad medicine, and I want to tell him that at present we would rather have a grain of help than a mountain of sympathy. I want to ask him to do something for us with reference to the carriage of wooden cases. About £4 18s. 6d. is charged per ton from Cape Town to the north; the same cases come back again to Cape Town, and the wood is then weighed with the fruit, so that we then have to pay for carrying the cases, possibly £4. The wooden cases therefore cost us £8 a ton for carriage, or about 2s. per case. We think this is very high, and we should like to ask the Administration to see whether the rate for the carriage of wooden cases cannot be reduced. The Minister has, on previous occasions, said that districts get the benefit of their geographical position, but our fruit farmers feel that we do not benefit by that. To and from Delagoa Bay cases are charged about £3 8s. 6d., and that is almost half the distance from Marico to Cape Town. We think that in proportion, the rate from Marico to Delagoa Bay is dearer than to Cape Town, and if the rate to that place is made reasonable was can take advantage of our geographical position. There are fruit producers who live close to Delagoa Bay. At the moment there are no facilities in Delagoa Bay for shipping fruit, but as the people live so close to Delagoa Bay we are anxious that they also should get the benefit of their position, and when the contract is again considered I hope the Minister will make a special effort to enable that port also to ship fruit. If the railway rate is not higher in proportion to the Cape Town one, the fruit farmers of north-eastern Transvaal will derive great advantage from it. I hope the Minister will therefore help us a little.

I do not wish to discuss the question of civilized labour here to-day. We have discussed it for four years now, and the Government have embarked upon an experiment which we hope will prove a solution for one of the greatest dangers which the country is faced with, what is called the poor white problem. As the railway is the charity department of the Government and provides work for these unfortunate people, I want to appeal to the Minister to recognize that we have another problem which, unless we are careful, will become much greater and more serious than the poor white problem, and that is the poor black problem. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the fact, but there are approximately three-quarters of a million of natives in the province facing a condition of starvation. That is practically the whole of the natives in the Ciskeian area. The whole of them are faced with starvation. I do not think the Minister of Finance realizes that position. I went through these native areas recently, and I assure the House they have practically lost everything they had.

Won’t the mines take the natives?

They have lost all their stock, and they have not reaped any crop for four years. I do not plead for charity, but I want the House to realize that many of them are not only on the verge of starvation, but actually starving. Many children are already dying from mal-nutrition, and it is one of the greatest dangers facing this country to-day that we are on the eve of developing a “poor black” problem. The poor white—I do not like the term—has still got a certain amount of self-respect, and will not wantonly go to gaol, but if you have natives starving without opportunities of earning money, they will say it is better to go to gaol, where they at least will be fed. The Minister of Finance says there is plenty of work on the mines and on the farms. Let me say over 30 per cent. of these natives are turned down by the mines. The work is hard, and the mines pick and choose their boys. They turn down the man who is not physically fit, and these boys have to undergo two medical examinations, one in the Eastern Province and one in Johannesburg.

I hope the hon. member is right, and that the situation about the labour supply is not so alarming.

At least 50 per cent. of these natives would not be acceptable on the mines. With many farmers in the Eastern Province, the drought conditions are such that they have not the work to employ these boys. These natives have always been employed at a low wage, and I am convinced in the next six months the Government is going to be faced with a serious position. I am not an alarmist, and I do not ask the Government to feed these natives, but in a short time it will be necessary for the Government to find some kind of work for them. I do not want the Government to come to their assistance by giving them food; that I think would be the worst thing for the country to do. But the Government will have to do something to find labour for the natives in the Eastern Province, otherwise we shall be faced with a serious position. As I have said before, I have never favoured our natives coming down to the Western Province, and from that point of view I sympathize with the Minister of Railways in his civilized labour policy. Down here they come into contact with the lowest class of coloured people, and mix with them, and obtain facilities for liquor which is degrading and demoralizing the natives and is one of the chief causes of that feeling of antagonism towards the natives that we find growing down here. For that reason I have tried to persuade natives to keep away from Cape Town. It is not advisable for the natives to come down here, and I shall always support the policy of any Government of keeping natives away from these areas, but I do think that in a short time it will be necessary for the Government to do something to provide work for the natives in order to keep them from drifting down here. Two years ago the Minister built a railway line in the Eastern Province, for which we are very grateful, and he used native labour there and it was satisfactory and tided over that hiatus in which the natives were disturbed in their labour here and sent back to the territories. It will be necessary soon to find some means of providing labour for these natives to whom I have referred. To-day they are cutting down jointed cactus, and the divisional councils are keeping them employed in that way. That is only a very small item.

The hon. member must not go deeply into that question on this motion.

I am coming to the point now. As I said before, the railway department is the charity department in this country. The Minister is continually having demands made upon him to provide work for various people. Very shortly we shall have about 50,000 natives seeking work, and the Department of Railways will have to help in some directions, and I would ask the Minister to develop this turning basin at East London and put a large number of natives on it. To-day East London claims to be one of the largest agricultural produce ports. In the Transkeian territories, where we fortunately have not had any drought, we have one-third of the cattle of the whole of the Cape Province and one-seventh of the sheep. East London is the natural port that the natives should be diverted to, and I do appeal to the Minister to take into consideration this need of the Eastern Province for a turning basin at East London. I make this appeal to the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Finance. I am not asking for any assistance for the natives other than the assistance which the Government has been contributing to Europeans in drought areas in this country, and that is providing labour for the people if they are prepared to work. Let us make provision for the natives. The Minister of Finance, I see, is looking hard at me.

I hope you are right, because there is work for them to do.

That may be, but there is a large proportion, as I said before, who are turned down. I make an appeal to the Minister to carry out the same policy as he did before when he constructed that railway to St. Marks. The country will have to face this, that we must, at all costs, prevent the native from becoming a poor black, prevent him from losing the race consciousness that he has, and prevent him from becoming a beggar and a loafer. In the Eastern Province we have not the poor white problem developed so acutely as in other areas, and I do not think the civilized labour policy and the resultant importation of poor whites should be extended to those areas. I hope the Minister will take into consideration the fact that East London is the natural port of the native territories, it is near at hand, it is the port that the native looks to as his port, and I trust that the Minister will consider the advisability of providing in that port by the construction of a turning basin, or in other ways, for the demand that the native is going to make upon him for means of making a living for himself and his family during the coming months.

I just want to bring a point to the notice of the Minister about which I spoke to him in his office. It is about the needy persons in my constituency who are intending to trek. We know that the Government assists people who can get appointments in other parts of the country as bywoners with the farmers. We are grateful to the Minister for those facilities, but there is another class of people who also require it and who get no facilities, viz., the people who can no longer continue farming in a district through drought or through an industry which has closed down. Those people want to go to other parts, such as South-West Africa or the Transvaal, to farm. They can get land there under good conditions, and they have a chance of again becoming independent farmers. When they want to trek they have to pay full rates for their tickets, and also for their belongings and tools. I will ask the Minister how far the railways can assist the people, because they are only compelled by necessity to go away. If they have to remain in the district, they will probably in a short time become poor necessitous whites, but if they are assisted and they go to other districts they will be able to become independent once more. What I ask is that in these cases the people should be assisted in respect of their passenger tickets and goods charges. If the Minister has not yet thoroughly considered the matter, I want to ask him rather not to reply now, but to wait until he is able to give a favourable answer. It used to be the custom on the railways to hire people a truck on which they could put their wagon and belongings and travel themselves, but I understand that is no longer done. I now want to ask whether it will not be possible to again give a truck for that purpose. I asked the Minister to again permit this practice, so that the families wanting to go to the Transvaal, e.g., can travel in their wagons in a truck. In this way it is made easier for them to start farming elsewhere. I am flooded daily with letters from people from my district asking for this concession. To-day I received a letter from no less than 20 people who are compelled by necessity to leave the district and want to trek at once. If a return were made of all the people in my district wanting to trek, it would be seen that it was a large number. I hope the Minister will seriously consider the request and, as stated, I would rather be waited until he can give a favourable reply if he cannot do so to-day. If the Minister possibly does not want to make the facilities apply generally, he can merely permit them in the districts where the condition of the people makes it necessary, for instance, Oudtshoorn, Calitzdorp and Ladysmith. To prevent abuse, strict supervision can be maintained where those facilities are granted.

I would again like to refer to the old Cape Central line. Last year I was told that the question of waiting-rooms would have consideration. Very little progress has been made in that respect, and I find that people are still suffering from grave disability and great inconvenience. There is also the question of platforms. I was told when nearly £700,000 was passed on the estimates last year that something would be done, but I find that little has been done. Further, with regard to the acceleration of the trains, about 100 miles of the permanent way have been relaid with heavier rails, but, instead of the trains being accelerated, it is the contrary, and they have become slower. I wanted to ask the Minister a question about the lateness of the trains, but it would give the department a good deal of work. Unquestionably, scarcely a month goes by there is some derailment in some minor way. We do not hear of that, and it is due to the very indifferent and useless engines employed on that line.

German engines?

I will not say that they come from Germany. They are some of the old N.C.C.R. engines, and they should be put on the scrap heap. Then we are still considered a branch line, but in view of the fact that there is a very large amount of through traffic to Port Elizabeth, I think we are entitled to ask the authorities and the Minister to consider putting us on the main line basis. Considerable traffic has been diverted from the main line, and is going by way of the old N.C.C.R. line to Port Elizabeth. The matter should receive serious attention. With regard to the catering staff on the trains going to Port Elizabeth, I hear as soon as a train arrives there the men who have worked the train have to sleep at the Seamen’s Institute—which, to my mind, is an excellent institution, but which at times is overcrowded—so that these men are put to great inconvenience. I suggest that these men should be allowed on the train which leaves Port Elizabeth practically on the same day. They should have some consideration when they reach their destination. As regards Bredasdorp, the people of that part are also suffering from inconvenience. I found on Friday while the show was in progress that there was only one second-class carriage to Bredasdorp which was overcrowded to a very great extent. There were at least forty passengers or more. I think we are not getting that consideration which we should get. As to the coloured people, as a rule a large number are living at Elim, and they proceed to Napier. There is one third-class coach, which is overcrowded. I am informed that coaches are taken off at Caledon with the exception of one, which is sent on from there to Bredasdorp. On April 8th or 9th a very large number of coloured people will be going to Elim, and unless proper arrangements are made they will be huddled together like a lot of sheep. Such treatment is not fair. The hon. members for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) and Salt River (Mr. Snow) twitted the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) regarding his remarks on the fisheries, they stating that he was entertaining socialistic ideas. I have yet to learn, however, that the development of harbours in a young country is a work for private enterprise. Ï would like to amplify what the hon. member for Caledon said as to the need for the encouragement of fishing by the provision of proper harbours. At Whitesands and two other places in my constituency the fishermen are suffering great hardships because of the lack of shelter for their boats. Fish, which is cheap, is becoming a stable food for the farming population. If a little acknowledgment of the efforts made in the direction indicated by the hon. member for Caledon were given, it would be appreciated, and the work would be reproductive.

I think that all the members in the House will agree with me when I say that the debate of the Bill has been a long one. The question is if members would not be better advised to discuss the matter they have raised in committee on the main estimates. In my opinion it would be better than discussing all these things at this stage. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) brought up the Sea Point line. The electrification of that line is a legacy from my predecessor. When I took over I immediately instituted an enquiry whether it was necessary to electrify the Sea Point line and the Docks line. I immediately decided that the latter was not necessary. I also considered the alteration of the Sea Point line, but the Sea Point public were so opposed to cancelling the electrification that I let the matter rest. The hon. member and the House knows that at the time it was proposed to the Railway Board by the chairman of the Electricity Commission to build a motor road in the place of the railway, but this was not approved of by the public, who took up the attitude that the railway to Sea Point was built years ago as a protection against any possible exploitation by the trams.

That did not oblige you to electrify.

The hon. member knows well enough that we are electrifying the suburban line, and if we do not electrify one portion we shall have confusion. The public have forced our hands and the line is electrified to-day, but as the hon. member pointed out, the line is running at a loss to-day. With reference to the debate in this House and elsewhere, it appears that the House feels that the Railway Board should re-consider the whole House with a view to breaking up the line. If that is the view of the House—and I am almost forced to the conclusion—I am quite prepared to go into the matter again with the Railway Board and see whether it is desirable.

Cannot the fares be increased?

The private motor-buses forces us to keep the fares so low.

What is the loss?

In the neighbourhood of what the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) mentioned, though not quite so much. We expect it to be about £38,000.

That is enough for a year.

I admit it, and if the House wishes we will again consider the pulling up of the line, but we did not want to do anything which could be regarded as unfair to the public. The position is much changed. To-day there is not only the tram, but the motor-buses. Then the hon. member pleaded for the panel system for railway doctors. The matter is being investigated in conjunction with the chairman of the Medical Board.

It has been under consideration for three years.

As I said before, the panel system costs too much, but on account of the hon. member’s insistence I decided to consult the chairman of the Medical Board and I await his report. The hon. member also spoke about complaints about the doctors by members of the Sick Fund. They have representatives on the Sick Fund, and all that is necessary is to bring the complaint to the notice of the Sick Fund Board. Then he mentioned abuses in the appointment of railway medical officers. This is another matter which must be brought to the attention of the Sick Fund Board. The Railway Board now has the right of approving or disapproving of the medical appointments. The hon. member also said that district surgeons would not be railway doctors as well. We are considering this in the appointment of doctors. In conclusion, the hon. member complained about the conditions of the railway coaches and the catering service. I will not deny that it is possible for it to happen that a coach is not clean, but the hon. member must not forget that South Africa is a dusty country and that it is not easy to keep the coaches always clean.

What did the hon. member pay for food on the American trains?

I should like to show him the charges for refreshments on trains overseas. The department pays particular attention to the cleaning of the coaches. If it sometimes happens that the coach is not clean, why does the hon. member not bring it to the notice of the ticket examiner or the chief steward? The hon. member will see that it is not much use making a general complaint. If he complains to officials and receives no satisfaction, let him then come to me and say who the responsible person is that has taken no notice, and I will then act in the matter.

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

When the House adjourned I was replying to points raised by the hon. member for Ladybrand. One remained, viz., the issue of receipts by stewards in the dining saloons. The complaint repeatedly comes to the notice of the Administration, but hon. members and the public will see that, unless the public insists on getting receipts, it is impossible to control the matter. The officials have clear instructions to issue receipts. I shall be glad if the public will insist on getting receipts. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) pressed for more facilities on branch lines, and especially for school-going children. As I told the hon. member before, the question of the branch lines is not easy. The farmers expect that there shall be halts at short intervals on branch lines where they can load their produce, and it also happens that delay is caused because there is a large amount of produce which was not notified. It is unavoidable that the service for that reason is not so rapid, and is subject to irregularities. We are trying to improve the position, but mixed trains are unavoidable. Then a few hon. members pressed for a reduction of rates on wool on branch lines. I have already explained that when I assumed office the traffic on branch lines, whether the goods fell under Class 1 or Class 10, were subject to a splitting of the rates at junctions. Goods which formerly, e.g., were carried from Durban to Vryheid were charged up to the Glencoe Junction and from Glencoe on to Vryheid, in other words, there was a splitting of the rates at junctions. When I came into office I altered this and all goods which fall under Classes 6 to 10 were no longer made subject to splitting, so that the rates for all the classes is calculated according to the full distance, and, in the case mentioned, that rate is, therefore, calculated from Durban to Vryheid. We have, therefore, met the farmers with regard to the transport of agricultural produce. Now hon. members ask for a lower rate on wool and other produce. It is quite impossible. The branch lines are to-day showing unfavourable results, and if they are to be worse it will not be in the interests of agriculture, and it will hinder the further construction of branch lines in the future.

When is the old N.C.C.R. to be changed from a branch line into a main line?

I do not think the time has come yet.

You promised it.

I promised to consider it, and I will do so again, if necessary. My hon. friend must not forget that we have large capital expenditure on the line. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) complained about derailments. It is quite true, but the line is in an unsatisfactory condition. We are putting in heavier sleepers as quickly as possible. I thought I should get a word of thanks from the hon. member, but it usually happens that the more reason there is for it the less thanks is given. Then the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) spoke about housing in the low veld. I have every sympathy with the hon. member, and hope to put something on the estimates this year for housing for that purpose. The hon. member mentioned individual cases, and if there are further special needs, I hope he will tell me of them, and I will go specially into it. I shall do my best to improve the housing. With regard to transfer of the staff, I want to say that is a matter which the staff have in their own hands. The staff need only apply in the ordinary manner and our policy is very sympathetic towards people who have been a number of years in the low veld.

Some railwaymen struggled for two years and then resigned.

If anyone applied and was not given attention he could have gone to the Railway Board. The Railway Board is the court of appeal for such cases, and it was not necessary to resign.

Under what item does the Minister’s “sympathy” come?

I can only say that this matter not only has my sympathy, but I am prepared to take action. The staff have only to bring such cases to our notice. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) also spoke about housing for civilized labourers. The position in Lydenburg is probably the same as in Barberton, and if the hon. member will bring particular cases to my notice I shall see whether I can do anything on the estimates this year. I will deal with the other points raised by the hon. member later. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit) pressed for concessions in connection with motor services. It was very pleasant to hear from all sides of the House that the motor services are giving so much satisfaction, but hon. members must not now start asking for concessions as the service will then become uneconomic, and the danger will exist that we cannot extend them any further. We are not prepared to give concessions, and I think this is in the interests of the countryside itself.

Quiet right.

I am glad the hon. member agrees with me. There are points then on which we agree! Then the hon. member for Victoria West spoke about the carriage of sheep. The hon. member is wrong if he thinks that we charge half the ordinary tariff. We carry at quarter rates.

Under the Drought Emergency Loan Act?

In that case half is charged, but the Land Bank pays it to the department and advances it for the farmers, so that they do not pay cash. I think that is a great concession and we only charge half. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) referred to the silence of the Opposition in connection with the shipping contract. I noticed it myself. I think the hon. members were afraid to give the Government a little praise. Only the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) did not hesitate to say what he felt. The hon. member for Winburg asked if we were not able to enter into a contract with others. I can assure the House that the Government considered all the proposals very carefully, also that of Sir Robert Thomas, but we entered into the contract with the Union-Castle Company because the Government felt that it was the best in the interests of South Africa. I am very glad the hon. member said that great improvements on previous contracts had been made and they are undoubtedly of great importance to South Africa. The hon. member raised a very important point about the rates from South Africa to East and Central Africa. The Government has considered it, but the position is that the Union-Castle Company has very little interest in the East Coast trade. The British India Company is chiefly interested there, and we are going into the matter, and hope to be able to achieve something. The hon. member further spoke about the placing of South African boys on the ships. Hon. members will be just as disappointed as I am that the boys coming from the training ship “General Botha” apparently do not stop long on ships.

I am very glad to hear it.

I do not agree with him. The manager of the Union-Castle Company and the manager of the other companies assured me that the boys do not remain long on the ships, and that is also our experience in the few ships belonging to the Department of Railways and Harbours. The Union-Castle Company is quite prepared to employ boys from the training ship if they apply.

Twelve are now employed, and they take three every year

They are prepared to take more. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) spoke about leave to civilized labourers. They get four days’ leave. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) spoke about the rate on wooden cases for fruit export. I am sorry that I cannot reduce it. He says that when the cases are packed they are charged for again with the fruit, and that that amounts to a double charge for the cases. I am glad that he smiled when he said it. The wood is very light and the rate on export fruit very low. As for Delagoa Bay, I can only say that we have not lost sight of the matter, but it is not now the time to debate it. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) spoke about moving farmers from one district to another. I have much sympathy for that, and if he will address his request to the central Government, I am prepared heartily to support it.

†With regard to the questions which have been raised by hon. members opposite, on the cross benches and here, asking for more expenditure, both from revenue and loan funds, I want to say in general that it is most extraordinary to hear hon. members in this regard. It is extraordinary that hon. members who are most vocal with regard to economy, reduction of our expenditure and who are criticizing the administration for the way expenditure has gone up, have most to say in pressing for more expenditure. I will give an instance. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) comes and gaily suggests that we should assist the divisional and provincial councils by a subsidy for the roads on which we operate our motor services. We have 8,000 miles of these at the present time, and many more will be added. Has my hon. friend considered that if we give a subsidy of, say £5 per mile, it would amount to £40,000—a considerable sum. When it comes to matters of this sort, it is said “let the Government do it.” It would be very pleasant for the divisional and provincial councils, but if we foot the bill hon. members will say, “What right have you to increase expenditure like that?” The local communities should pay for the roads; why should the railway administration do it? No, there is no justification whatever for that, and I say definitely that the railway administration is not prepared to contribute to the cost of the roads, which is the work of the divisional and the provincial councils; and they must fulfil that. Take another case; the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates), a member of the party which says we must keep down administrative expenses, asks for more benefits to the men, says you must restore the old rates of pay. He asks for further benefits, and says we must give more first-class passes; but does he realise what that will cost? You cannot in these matters have it both ways. Hon. members say, “Control your loan expenditure, the country cannot stand it,” but the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir Williaim Macintosh) waxes wroth because I am not prepared to commit the administration to a large harbour scheme. The hon. members representing East London say they want a turning basin costing between £30,000 and £40,000, which is a mere flea bite.

(An hon. member made an interjection.)

What is it then?

Justice!

All these amounts added together swell the amount considerably. These things cost money, the Government must control expenditure, and we shall certainly not accede to all the requests hon. members may make. With regard to the financial position, I may say that I hope in my budget statement, to deal fully with the comparisons as regards expenditure with other countries, where a comparison can fairly be made. Just let me say with regard to what the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) said about our ratio of expenditure to revenue compared to other countries. He mentioned Kenya. I commend hon. members to go to Kenya and see how the railways there are conducted. Do hon. members know that drivers, firemen, clerks and large numbers of the staff are natives and Indians? What is the value of saying our ratio of expenses is higher than in Kenya? Are hon. members opposite, when they criticize us on grounds of that sort, really serious? My hon. friend must not now run away from Kenya. Let hon. members face this; are they prepared to see our railway service gradually getting blacker and blacker?

I mentioned Canada.

My hon. friend also gave figures with regard to Europe, and I ask, is that a fair comparison?—to compare small countries densely populated, with a large industrial population, with ours, which has long distances, and is very sparsely populated? Can you compare Great Britain in that respect with South Africa?

I also mentioned countries having greater distances than South Africa, such as the U.S.A.

My hon. friend says “Let the public take note of this, and see how large our expenditure is.” Let hon. members, however, be fair to our officials. The general manager and his officers manage the railways; the Minister, with the Railway Board, is responsible for policy. I shall never evade that responsibility, but I say we must in our criticism be fair to the men to whom we have entrusted the management of our railways.

What about the turning basin?

I am now dealing with more serious questions. I do not propose going further into the matter of the ratios of expenditure, because I shall return to it at a later stage. There will be an opportunity for me to make a full statement on the Budget. My hon. friend and many other hon. members have dealt with the cost of civilized labour. I will not deal with this at this stage—I hope to deal with it later. Hon. members have pressed me to keep separate accounts, and tell the House what this is costing. I ask hon. members once again what is the value of keeping separate accounts when you cannot set off the corresponding benefits which the administration gets? I say, quite deliberately, we would be misleading the country if we gave a figure which is merely a book figure and which does not actually represent the position. On the Winburg line, about 30 miles in length, I think, we had the ordinary system of maintenance with natives. We have changed that, and introduced modern methods. With fewer European labourers we are saving money on the maintenance of that line. That just shows the possibilities of European labour if wisely used together with better appliances. We are gradually improving our appliances. While I appreciate that white labour costs more than native labour, the necessity is all the greater for us to improve our methods, and we are doing that with excellent results. Is it fair to compare the wages paid to these man and to the natives? No, sir, let us get away from this question of comparison.

It is not a question of wages, but of the extra cost.

Let us get away from comparing the white man with the native. The native has his own place in our country. We do not say that he is to have no place in the Sun in South Africa. At the same time, do not begrudge your own kith and kin a place in South Africa. As to branch line statistics, I gave the reason to the House last year for not publishing them. I accept the statement given to me by the chief accountant that the cost would be in the neighbourhood of £12,000. All the stations make their returns to the head office, but the returns are not collated.

Do you mean to say that the department does not know what the loss on a line is?

No. Does the hon. member think that if a particular line is not showing good results we would not know it?

How would you know?

Because we have the traffic returns of a particular line. If hon. members want the results of any particular branch line, they can ask for them. The results are there and they will be given to them.

If the results are there, why not publish them?

I am not prepared to spend money on a thing like that. Have hon. members read Henry Ford’s book? He has cut away all unnecessary statistics, and is out to see results. So are we. I cannot conceive that any Parliament would consider a new building programme without having before it the results of the working of all the branch lines. At present, however, we are not dealing with any new programme, but the normal administration of the railways, and I see no justification whatever for the publication of these returns. It all forms part of our big system and we are out for economy. As to the administration’s steamers, we sold two—

And bought two.

Certainly. We are still taking coal to the East on behalf of our Natal friends and bringing back sleepers from Australia. The hon. member for Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), has suggested that our policy is not to taper down rates on long distance traffic. As a matter of fact, the whole of our tariff has been based on that principle. As to co-operation, between the public and the department, we have on every division a commercial agent who has been specially selected for the post. He travels about, gets into touch with the public and hears what they require, and in this way we hope to get closer co-operation. With reference to motor competition, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), surprised me. Does he not think that the time has come when we should deal with the problem, not by way of destroying private enterprise, but by protecting the State? Let me stress the point made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). The position is that private enterprise leaves the development work to the State. We are doing all the development work in many cases at a fairly considerable loss, but private enterprise is “barging in” on routes like the one from Maritzburg to Durban, where we have an excellent service. We have instituted a special passenger service and cut the rates. We have been alive to the position.

You only woke up lately.

Private enterprise is now coming, and saying, “Please stop your competition, you are killing us.”

I did it.

What about the agricultural department’s competition?

Please ask the Minister of Agriculture. In the Western Province private motor services had practically taken the wine traffic away from us. They pick out all the best paying class of traffic and leave the low-rated traffic to us. They must become common carriers. Is that fair to the State system? Has the time not come when the State shall have protection not to blot out these people but to have equal competition. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is silent for once. The House will have to face this in the future. I am not introducing legislation now, but I want to educate the House on this subject if I can. The time will come when we shall have to deal with the problem if the railways wish to maintain their present position.

You will be gone by the time the House is educated.

It is quite hopeless endeavouring to educate some people. Even the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), sometimes finds it difficult to appreciate a good doctrine when it is preached by this side. As to the petrol storage in Cape Town docks, we have consulted the Harbour Advisory Board, and the officials who have gone into the matter very closely indeed, and they are satisfied that there is no danger.

Will you let us see the contract?

Yes, certainly. Then my hon. friend dealt with the question of the engineer who went to the Argentine. I was surprised at the hon. member raising this matter at this stage. He knows the matter will be fully discussed in select committee, and he must now see that it was only fair that the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) should have had an opportunity of explaining the matter there. I take the fullest responsibility for the expenses of Mr. Heberden. He was sent to the East and to the Argentine to investigate the sleeper supplies of the world, and it had nothing whatever to do with the undertaking of the hon. member for Vrededorp to pay for the services of the officer who was to examine the sleepers.

Why did you send him the account?

Does the hon. member suggest that the general manager can never make a mistake? Read the reports of the Auditor-General, and see if the facts I have stated do not there appear. Hon. members asked why the Auditor-General raised it in the report. I do not know why, but there is nothing in the report of which the hon. member for Vrededorp need be ashamed. As I have said, I take the full responsibility. Then the hon. member raised the question of the use of the motor car by members of the board. I also use that car, and I see no reason why they should not use it. It was done in the past. It was raised by the Auditor-General now for the first time.

The Auditor-General was praising you.

He was praising me wrongly.

How many cars have you bought for them?

There are two cars used by the board.

He said you were conforming to the rule, and the board was not.

They have followed the practice, and they do use the cars, but when they use the cars privately they pay for every single mile. The cars are used by the members of the board and the Minister. They are only for official use, and are also used to convey the members between their homes and the office, and back again. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) raised the question of the output of the workshops. It will interest the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates), who said we were doing less now than we were doing before. I will give him the manufacturing account figures: 1922-’23, £1,981,000; 1923-’24, £2,220,000; 1924-’25, the first year of the new Government, £3,765,000; 1925-’26, £4,073,000; 1926-27, £5,612,000. That gives an average for the three years the present Government has been in power of £4,483,000, and for the two years I have given the figures of my predecessor, it was £2,101,000. That is an increase of over £2,000,000.

I did not mention that. I mentioned coaches.

I have given him the manufacturing account figures. I ask him, have any employees been put off out of the service during the last three or four years? Is it not a fact that many employees have been taken on? What does the hon. member wish to insinuate? Evidently the hon. member does not know. He referred to grievances of the staff. Let me say to the hon. member for Liesbeek that we have welfare officers in the service who look after the interests of the European labourers, and any employee with a grievance can address a communication to the welfare officer, who acts in co-operation with the officers on the different systems. The hon. member pleaded for the abolition of local allowances. I would like to know whether he is speaking for the whole of the staff. The hon. member for Uitenhage referred to the speech I made at Humansdorp, in which I uttered a word of warning to my constituents, and said that the Administration had in mind the extension of the Avontuur to Kamfer line, and I warned them that if they persisted in using the private motor service the chances of this extension being carried out would be endangered. The building of that line was contemplated in the time of my predecessor.

I never contemplated it.

I will produce the documents. I do not say that the board agreed to build the line. I simply say that it was in contemplation. It was pleaded for whilst I was in opposition.

I certainly never seriously contemplated that line.

Well, I said that if the farmers in that constituency were not prepared to support State railways, there would be no hope of further construction, and I say that now, to all sides of the House. If the public will not support the State railways, they must not come to me and ask for an extension of the railways. I should have thought my hon. friend would have said that was rather courageous language to use to my constituents. Now, with regard to the widening of the gauge. As the result of a discovery of suitable deposits for the manufacture of cement, it became necessary to consider the whole question of transport to Port Elizabeth, where a new cement factory is being established. That might mean one or two trains a day. We can only carry 200 to 250 tons on the narrow gauge railway, and I had a survey made to compare the costs as between the narrow and the broad gauge. Is there anything wrong in that? If my friend has a real grievance, let him express it, but when he throws out insinuations I say it is not fair, it is not playing cricket. The hon. member referred to the rates on wool to wool washeries. He has placed new facts before me, and I am going into the matter to see if it is possible to meet him. In future members might give me an opportunity of dealing with such matters before they attack me. I always welcome an attack when it is well founded. I hope the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will pay particular regard to the statement of the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) that the railways are understaffed. I do not agree with the hon. member for Uitenhage. I say that what we want is better organization, and I have taken the necessary steps to ensure this. Hon. members will appreciate that while we had as our general manager Sir William Hoy, it was very difficult while he was at the head of affairs to reorganize our railways, but I have taken the opportunity since his retrial, after close study of conditions here and overseas, of reorganizing the railways, and I do say now that we can do with less staff, but we want better organization.

And better plant, too.

Undoubtedly. Let us give our new general manager, under the reorganization, a fair opportunity of dealing with the matter.

What are you paying now for overtime?

We are paying a fairly considerable sum.

About a million a year?

I cannot now give the hon. member the figure. I have explained to the House over and over again why it is that you must incur overtime. The hon. member for Uitenhage has dealt with a number of individual cases. I think I will be doing justice now if I say nothing about them. Let me say in general to the hon. member that a railwayman who was of assistance to the Government during the time of the election, and was thanked by a Minister, in the interests of the efficient working of our railways conform to the regulations. That is a policy which I laid down when I took office, and that is the policy which is being carried out to-day. When the hon. member states that men who assisted the Government at the election are now dissatisfied, I must tell him quite frankly that I do not understand his argument, because, is not that a proof that we are not taking any notice of the fact as to whether a man served us during the time of the election or not? I have a question to ask the hon. member for Uitenhage, and I hope he will at the next opportunity reply to it. I visited Uitenhage as Minister of Railways after I took office, and I ask the hon. member whether on that occasion he had any reason to complain of anything on my part?

None whatsoever.

I ask him then, why throw out these insinuations? At the next general election I will probably go to Uitenhage again, but I am not going there as Minister, but as a member of my party. I will not act as some hon. members of the South African party often did, go as a Minister and play the part of election agent.

What about De Aar?

I have already said that I went to De Aar privately. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has raised a very important issue—and it was quite refreshing to hear him—as to the necessity for consultation between the general manager and the two assistant general managers, technical and commercial. Let me say to the House that I thoroughly agree with the hon. member. It is most necessary and it is clearly understood that there must be the closest co-operation between the general manager and the two assistant general managers. Hon. members will appreciate that with the general manager away in Cape Town during five months of the year, it is necessary that there shall be two officers who are in the position to deal with the work from day to day, as occasion arises. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) and other members raised the question of derailments. Let me give them the assurance that these derailments are investigated by senior officers as soon as they occur, and we endeavour to get the best information as to the cause of these derailments. The hon. member asked me about the constitution of the boards of inquiry. I regret to state that I see no reason why we should change the constitution of these boards of inquiry. It is really a matter for my colleague, the Minister of Justice, but, as far as I am concerned, I do not think there is any justification for a change. The level crossings commission report is being printed at the present time, and I hope to lay it on the Table shortly. The report is a very important one, and raises very important issues, and the House will have an opportunity to deal with it at a later stage. I am not at present prepared to indicate what our policy is. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has raised the question of fishing harbours. The position is that, unless the smaller harbours have been proclaimed as minor harbours, they fall under the provincial administration, and any expenditure must be borne by the provincial administration, but where these harbours have been proclaimed as minor harbours, the Railway Department is responsible for anything that may be necessary in those harbours.

What are you doing about the fisheries report?

That is a question which my hon. friend must address to my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Industries, but I understand that the report is at present under consideration by the Minister concerned. The hon. member for Caledon also raised the question of the train service to Caledon, and the station facilities at Elgin. I can only say, as I indicated in reply to a question by the hon. member, that we hope to be able to improve the service to Caledon. The facilities at Elgin will have to stand over for provision some time later. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) has raised the question of the transportation system. We have changed the whole system now, and I hope, as a result of that change, we shall be able to improve our working. The hon. member has also referred to the accounts, which he considers are too involved. I can only say in that regard that, if the hon. member has any suggestions to make in reference to any particular account, we shall deal with it, as we want in our accounts to give a full and true picture of the railways. The hon. member also referred to the building of more coaches in South Africa. Let me again repeat what I have said before, that when I took office our rolling stock was totally inadequate to deal with the needs of the country. My hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) will admit it. I have allowed for his difficulties. But the fact is that the railway equipment, as far as engines, rolling stock and coaches were concerned, was totally inadequate to deal with our traffic, and the result was that we could not then place the orders in the country and wait 18 months to two years for the completion. We had to act immediately, and acting as we did were forced to import large quantities of rolling stock from overseas, but I gave the guarantee then, and I give it again, that the men in the workshops of the administration will be fully employed for the next two years. My hon. friend will appreciate that unless we increase the number of men—and we can hardly do that because we have not got the buildings available—we can hardly give that undertaking unless the chief mechanical engineer has also so arranged his programme of work that the whole of the staff will be employed for two years. I am afraid under the circumstances I cannot carry the matter any further. We wanted that stock immediately, we could not wait. We could not turn away traffic. Under these circumstances, I think my hon. friend will agree that we were justified in acting as we did. Then he has raised the question of piecework and bonus payments, and says these are too high. I do not want to go into that now, but I have indicated to the House that I feel the position in regard to our workshops is not wholly satisfactory. We have now appointed an assistant chief mechanical engineer to deal with the whole position, and I am hopeful that as a result of that appointment we shall be able to make improvements in working. He also made a strenuous appeal on behalf of the labourers employed in the workshops. That matter is under consideration, but I am not prepared now to carry the matter any further. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) has raised the question of the rates on the branch line from Glencoe to Ermelo. As I have already explained, this branch line split has not been abolished for the classes of goods I have indicated. Consequently, the line being treated as a branch line, we cannot abolish the split. I have no information that there are branch lines in the Free State treated as main lines. He has referred to the rates on coal. I did reduce the rates by 1s. per ton, but I made the condition that the collieries would do likewise. They have done so, and I am hopeful that as a result of that reduction the position will be materially improved. I want to say to hon. members on the cross benches who have said that this is a surrender which was not justified, that I was thoroughly satisfied, with members of the Railway Board, that it was absolutely essential for us to come to the assistance of the collieries. Competition from Welsh, Indian and Japanese coal was very serious indeed, and I wished to assist our collieries. I felt a good case had been made out. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has raised the question of the railways taking over the building of roads. I need hardly say the Government is not prepared to do that. I was glad to hear his tribute to our advertising in Great Britain. I agree with him that the officer responsible for our advertising there is doing excellent work. He has advised me to build a railway hotel in Cape Town. I am not prepared to accept his advice on that point. He, with other hon. members, has asked me why we are buying engines in Germany. I must say I was surprised to hear this. What do hon. members want me to do? Do they want me to run the railways on business principles?

You don’t always do it.

That is not the question. Don’t let us get off on to civilized labour or any other subject now. Let us deal now with the purchase of engines. Do hon. members want me to follow out business principles? Do they know what the facts are? I want to say that those members who have criticized me have been most unfair in their criticism. We asked for tenders for just over 140 locomotives. The tenders came in. The value of the whole order was about £1,000,000. The British tenders were about a quarter of a million higher than the lowest German tender. I ask hon. members opposite who have been so vocal about this, what should I have done under those circumstances?

What about quality?

Do hon. members know that there are engines working on the system to-day, German engines from the Z.A.S.M. period? It is true we also have British engines working for a very considerable period. I have no reason to say that British engines have not been satisfactory. As a matter of fact, they have been very satisfactory indeed, but so have the German engines. Are hon. members really serious when they say we should economize and run the railways on business principles when they produce arguments as indicated? They say Great Britain is an important market to South Africa. I have never disputed that. We are doing all we can to extend our markets in Great Britain and outside, but what has that to do with the administration of the railways? I heard the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson), with other members from Natal, more especially from Durban, in a chorus of approval of the remarks made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) was one of them and he afterwards attacked me. I would ask them to direct their attention a little nearer home, to the Durban Town Council. Here is not a question of a quarter of a million difference. I will give the facts as given by the “Cape Times” on the 12th of October, 1927. This is the Reuter’s telegram from Durban—

I ask you, in view of this, is not the criticism very thin? I ask hon. members when they criticize the Railway Department whether they are really serious, or is this only part of the political game they are playing in anticipation of the next election?

Did you not send over £1,000,000 order to Germany to save just about £65 an engine?

The story is not yet told. Hon. members in their criticism are even more unfair than I have indicated. What are the facts? And hon. members know them perfectly well. The position was that the German tenders were very much lower than the British tenders, but because the Government wanted to give consideration to British tenderers what did we do? We withheld the order for 39 locomotives and gave the tenderers a fresh opportunity to tender and, as a result, we awarded the British firm an order for 29 locomotives. Hon. members opposite know that perfectly well, but they pose here as the great British patriots. No, let hon. members opposite show just a little more fairness in their dealing with the Government, and let them give us credit for what we have done. My colleagues and I went out of our way to assist British industry, and instead of a word of thanks, we have a number of statements made here which hon. members cannot substantiate; and, in order further to bolster up their weak case, they say American engines are scrapped after 12 years’ service. I challenge the hon. member who made that statement to give particulars.

What about American motorcars?

The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) is a great authority on American motor-cars, but that does not do away with the fact that he is also a great British patriot. If the hon. member will give me particulars that certain American engines were scrapped after 12 years’ service, I will go into the matter. Hon. members are even more unfair. They know perfectly well that we are placing almost all our orders for motor vehicles in Great Britain. A letter appeared in the “Times,” London, on the 6th January, this year, which dealt with this matter. I will not give the name, because it might appear as if I was giving the writer a cheap advertisement. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is aware of the facts, but, notwithstanding that, he puts a question on the paper which seems to insinuate that we are not dealing fairly with British industries. Out of his mouth he stands condemned. [Letter read to the effect that a good deal of interest had been aroused by the failure of British firms to secure the Government order of half a million worth of locomotives. But it should be some consolation that the motor-vehicle manufacturers had been more fortunate, the Minister having placed orders amounting to £100,000 within the last 12 months with British firms.] Hon. members are aware of this, but, notwithstanding that, they put up a smoke screen in anticipation, as I say, of the next election. The public will be able to judge of tactics of that sort. I want to say a few words with regard to the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), who also raised a number of questions.

How about the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) about the eight-hours day?

I am coming to that. I am afraid I have not finished by a long way yet.

Have you the letter?

The right hon. member is always so impetuous; he cannot help himself. With regard to the matter of hydrochloric acid which was raised, I am looking into that. As to coloured labourers whose services are being dispensed with at the age of 60, I am sorry the hon. member for Worcester put it in a way as if we were singling out coloured labourers, while the same action applies to all classes of staff. I thought the hon. member would admit that the Government had really done something good; with the Gratuity Bill, as that would assist coloured labourers who are retiring at the age of 60. But do we get that? Now we are told that these men are put off at the age of 60. All our men are put off at that age; the general manager is put off at 60.

Did I not state the facts?

Yes, but in such a way as to make it appear as if we are singling out the coloured labourer. I am quite prepared to deal with any deserving case sympathetically, under the charitable fund, where a man has gone off before the Act comes into operation, so that these men need not be stranded. With regard to what the hon. member said about crossing charges, on which he wanted to build up a big case, his case is that in 1913 it cost £17, and now it costs less than £10, the farmer doing some of the work himself. My hon. friend knows an estimate is framed, and if the work costs less the balance is paid out.

Oh no.

I can see my hon. friend is not only qualified to be a wine farmer—and he is a good one—but also qualifying to be a railway engineer; I wish him luck. I have deliberately allowed the farmer to do some of the work himself where he says the costs are too high. What is the value of criticism of that sort?

The value is this—to show how the costs of construction have gone up.

If it costs less than £10, what has the estimate to do with it? As to the housing at Worcester and De Doorns, that must stand over till the loan estimates. With regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), we are also giving consideration to it on the loan estimates. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) dealt with the matter of poor natives. That should be dealt with on the Prime Minister’s vote. It is not a matter with which I can deal. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) dealt with waiting rooms and other facilities on the old N.C.C.R. line. I said last year what my policy was, and I repeat it. We are not going to spend money on waiting rooms, platforms and the like, until the line in question (the old N.C.C.R. line) is in thorough order. When it is, we shall consider these things on their merits. I know the circumstances are unsatisfactory, but the public will have to rest satisfied until the line is put into thorough order. As to the catering staff, I have no information on the matter which the hon. member raised on that point, but I can see no real grievance if the men have to go to the seamen’s institute at Port Elizabeth. As to the overcrowding on the Bredasdorp line on show day, it may be some consolation to the hon. member if I tell him that even at Rosebank there is overcrowding on show days. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) has made a strong attack on the Administration and said we were penalizing “loyal little Natal” by singling out the Weenen line. He may be surprised if I tell him that I was totally unaware of the position. Some senior officers of the department looked into the working of the line from Estcourt to Weenen, and they said to the public: “Will it not be wise to-pull up the line and substitute an efficient motor service?” A public meeting was called and it refused to accept a motor service. When the public expressed their views the whole matter ended. There was no intention on our part to penalize Weenen. The hon. member complains that the cost of conveying fruit from Muden by the motor service is too high, but before we agreed to that service—at very great pressure—we told the people what the rates would be. We cannot carry the fruit at a lower rate until we have a better vehicle to do heavy transport. I am prepared to withdraw the service at once.

I will discuss the matter with the Minister.

I think that is a far wiser course, for there are many districts calling out for that kind of service. As to the East London turning basin, it is not clear from the correspondence that the Union-Castle Company will take their ships into the harbour when the turning basin is completed.

Lord Kylsant has promised.

If you will show me the promise I am prepared to accept it. I would like to give all facilities to Port Elizabeth and East London in connection with the export fruit trade, but the question is—has the time come for this expenditure? There is not sufficient justification for cold storage facilities at East London, and I am certainly not prepared to authorize it.

But you are going to put up cold storage at Durban.

Yes, for there is justification in that case, as Durban will deal with fruit from the Transvaal. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) dealt with the shipping agreement and put up a very strong case in favour of State shipping. In view of the agreement recently signed, his plea may very well serve as guidance to the Government in future, but at present we cannot act on it. The hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) dealt with the case of a driver who was dismissed because he overran a signal. We have, unfortunately, had a series of accidents, and it is very difficult to know what the punishment ought to be. The Minister does not inflict the punishment, that being done by the senior officer concerned. I will give a case in point. Take the head-on collision near Pretoria about 14 days ago. A goods train was in the station and a fast passenger train was going from Pretoria to Johannesburg. The station staff had the signals at danger. On the fast train was a special class driver—one of our oldest and most experienced drivers—a total abstainer, and a man with a clean record. Unfortunately, he passed the signal and ran into the goods train. These things are most unfortunate, but they are due to human frailty. They are difficult to explain. The man says he is very sorry, but he was looking at his fireman.

Do you retrench a man for a fault in judgment?

Do you suggest that we should not take the strongest disciplinary action against that man? As the case may ultimately come to the Railway Board and to me, on appeal, I do not think it would be right of me to indicate what the punishment ought to be. But when these cases occur, and when the officers have taken the necessary steps to the best of their ability, don’t let us question that, because if we do what will become of discipline? I am not by nature hard-hearted. It pains me deeply when a man of long service and a clean record is dismissed for a serious offence.

Will you look into the papers?

I have had the papers before me, and I regret that I am not prepared to reopen the case. I think in view of all the circumstances the officers were quite entitled to act as they did. I hope hon. members will stand by our officers in the very difficult task they have to perform. I hope, too, that the people of South Africa will not lose their sense of perspective in regard to these matters. When I was in Great Britain last year there were three serious accidents, in all cases with loss of life, during the 14 days I was in that country. We have a good and capable staff of railwaymen, but human frailty being what it is, we must take these steps, however much we may regret them. Where there is negligence we shall deal with these cases severely. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) has returned to the question of the purchase of rails, but I do not think it necessary to say anything about that. I am glad that he is satisfied over the question of appointments, a return of which was taken out at great cost. The men who have been promoted have had sufficient experience, and I am glad the hon. member said that any allegation which might have been made that men not thoroughly competent have been promoted, was not justified. He also referred to the hooter at Mouille Point. I need not deal with that again. It is in the interest of shipping.

Certainly. Hear, hear, stick to it.

It is a horrible thing.

Shipping is now coming in safely in a thick fog. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) has raised the question of the housing of the staff at Durban. Let me repeat what I said last year. Our local bodies dare not run away from their responsibilities. If the Railway Administration was to build all the houses required for all our employees, both in the towns and outside where there are no local bodies, what will be the responsibility of the Railway Department who will have to find the money out of loan money?

But it will solve the problem.

But at what cost? The Government assist the local bodies at practically cost, and the hon. member should use his influence to see that the Durban authorities use their power.

It is outside the borough.

There must be some authority. It must be a provincial authority. Then the hon. member raised the question of the language test. I cannot depart from the terms of the law. In 1923 a compromise was reached in connection with the general service, and was adopted by me in the Railway Act of 1925, and I think it would disturb the good feeling if we now tampered with the language clause. We do not like to penalize them, but the law must be observed, and I can hold out no hope to my hon. friend in that regard. He referred to the eight-hour day, and he also referred to an alleged pledge given by the Prime Minister.

A written pledge.

Then he must refer to the Prime Minister.

You have not seen the letter.

I have not seen the letter, and I have grave doubts as to whether it exists, but there will be plenty of opportunity—

When?

Look at your order paper tomorrow and you will see the opportunity there. The hon. member asks what our plans are with regard to the extension of the eight-hour day. We met our railway employees very handsomely last year, and we extended the operation of the eight-hour day to a very large extent. We contemplate at the present time doing something for the lower paid men, and in view of that I can hold out very little hope that we shall be able to do anything in that regard. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) has raised the question of the elevator charges. I agree that a case has been made out for the revision of the charges. A scheme has been drawn up and we are submitting it to the cooperative union and to other interested bodies, and we are getting their views on the rates to be charged for the storage of maize. He raised the question that our estimate submitted to Parliament for new lines are very often not reliable. That is so. They are based on purely preliminary surveys, and it is difficult for the engineers to give a closer estimate. It is often found that the lie of the land is different, there is more stone than was expected, and that explains these various differences. The report is founded on the survey of the officer who makes the investigation, and if the House in future wants fuller information we shall have to get our engineers to stake out the line. That will take months, whereas now it takes days. The hon. member also referred to the discharge of eighteen fitters. I have made inquiries, and I find that these men were engaged for a definite period, and when that period expired their services were terminated. I am glad he acquitted me of any racial feelings in this matter. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) raised many local matters. I will have them looked into. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) was rather unfair. He showed a rather bad apple from the dining car. The Railway Administration at the present time is spending £12,000 to £15,000 in providing fruit on the railways to set an example to the people, and it is not bringing a single penny of extra revenue. We do it to encourage the people to eat more fruit, but not a word of encouragement is heard from the hon. member. All he does is to show a shrivelled-up apple. My hon. friend will admit the fruit given on the dining cars is generally good.

No. no.

It is not good? Then I am sorry hon. members have had such a bad experience in that regard. Numbers of people whom I have been in touch with have had a different experience. I have had—

But you travel in luxury.

Well, I thought my hon. friend would have paid tribute to the Railway Administration for doing it. Too little fruit is eaten in the country. What are our hotels doing? They put little fruit on their tables.

But was that an apple of discord for the Minister of Defence?

With regard to the question of the European who attends to the bedding, he was appointed to supervise the bedding boys. We found in actual practice that it has not served its purpose, and we propose now abolishing their appointment.

A very wise thing to do.

We did it to ensure that the coaches which some hon. members complained of were not always clean were properly supervised, but it has not been very successful. The good work of the safety movement has not been stopped. It is still being carried on. I hope, sir, I have now dealt with all the questions which have been raised, and that the House will now be prepared to take the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

On the motion to go into committee now,

We want to get these measures through the other place. I hope, therefore, the House will not object to taking the committee stage now.

Agreed to.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

I would like to ask my hon. friend two question. Is he going to bring before the House for confirmation the agreement with the Union Castle Company? Then I want to ask him a question about the tourist agency. At present Cook’s are the only people who get commission on the tickets which they issue in South Africa. I have no objection to that, but there is another agency here called the Polytechnic, which is of very good standing, indeed. Why cannot they be given the same privileges? You give them 5 per cent. on tickets issued on the other side, but on tickets issued here you do not give them any commission at all. It is not likely that people coming out from England are going to take out tickets for travel in this country until they arrive here. They do not know what direction they are going to travel in. So long as you are satisfied that it is a respectable agency, I do not see why you should not give them the same facilities and privileges as you give to Cook’s.

In regard to the shipping contract, it is not the intention of the Government, unless the House specially desires it, to bring the shipping contract forward by way of motion. As the hon. member will see from the contract, if not disapproved of by the House before the 31st March, it will be taken as approved of by the House, but of course, if hon. members have a special desire that the contract should he brought before the House, the Government will consider that. In regard to the tourist agency, the position is that Cook’s have had certain benefits which are still running under the contract. We, as the hon. member knows, have also now introduced a tourist agency of our own. We have a tourist manager and two representatives at Cape Town and Durban.

Does it pay?

Undoubtedly. We are now carrying on the business, and at a good profit, too. My hon. friend will, therefore, understand that we are not prepared now to give the Polytechnic any additional benefits. As soon as the contract with Cook’s has expired, their position also will have to he considered, in view of the fact that we have our own agency. There is no reason why we should not continue the policy.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment; third reading to-morrow.

I would like the Minister to give me some information in regard to the new system which has been adopted of compelling a railway artisan to work four years before he can be considered for appointment to the permanent staff. I am sorry I did not raise this point before.

You can raise it on the general estimates.

The hon. member can raise it to-morrow on the third reading.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses, schedules and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment; third reading to-morrow.

I would like to ask the Minister a question on this. I suppose these industrial schools up and down the country come under this Bill? I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the excessive cost. Take the Western Training School in Natal. The net cost per pupil is £97 7s. 10d. It costs more than university students. The average cost of university students is £92 8s. Take Kroonstad, the net cost is £113 14s., or take Ladybrand, £115 net. It seems a terrific cost to teach these youngsters farming. Bloemfontein is £65. I hope these schools are not going to continue to cost all this money. Surely my hon. friend should see if something cannot be done more economically than that.

All I can say is that this is a matter of administration which should rather be raised when the ordinary estimates are being discussed than on this Bill. I do not think the comparison is quite fair between a small institution like the Western, and say, the Cape Town University. The one is a small institution with a small number of students, while the other has many hundreds of students. Of course, the expenditure per student is thereby very much reduced but, in any case, these institutions which the hon. member mentioned, have been taken over from the provincial councils and I do not think that since we have taken them over the expenditure has increased per pupil.

Perhaps we can go into it when we get to the estimates. I think it should certainly be gone into.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I just want to ask the Minister whether the staff of these schools will be considered as public servants in the public service. The clause says that they shall be subject to regulations which the Minister drafts on the recommendation of the Public Service Commissions. I should, however, like to know whether they are recognised public servants.

Yes. The hon. member will see that we are here concerned with two kinds of schools, viz., Government schools, of which the officials are public servants, and Government supported schools. In special cases where in the case of the last mentioned school it may be considered necessary, for certain education to be given in schools entirely at the cost of the Government, where the Government pays the whole salary and controls their appointment and discharge, they are public servants.

And have all the privileges?

Yes.

I would also like to ask the Minister if different treatment is going to be meted out to the teachers of scholastic subjects from the treatment given to teachers of practical subjects. For instance, in the blind school, we shall have teachers of music by touch. We shall also have teachers dealing with ordinary education in blind and other vocational schools and we shall have teachers for carpentering and other trades. I want to know whether he is going to treat teachers of practical subjects on the same basis as teachers of scholastic subjects.

It is rather difficult to catch the meaning of the hon. gentleman. These schools under this particular Bill vary very much in their circumstances. Some are industrial schools, others are other vocational schools. There are agricultural schools and there are special schools, for instance, for the deaf and blind. They vary so much that it is very difficult to compare one with the other, and I think each must be treated according to its special circumstances.

My reason for raising this point is this: My experience, not only in this country, but in other countries, is that if a teacher is teaching the arts and crafts, he is placed on a lower scale of pay than those who are teaching scholastic subjects. While I do not want to tie the Minister down to hard and fast rule, I hope and trust that he will try and treat each teacher on the same basis from the salary and pensionable point of view. After all, the man who is giving of his best in practical subjects should receive the same salary and pension rights as the man who is teaching scholastic subjects.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move—

This paragraph deals with a very important matter. It deals with the appointment, promotion, transfer or discharge of persons, and the right rests with the Minister, who may delegate it to his department or any other officer. I want “any other officer” cut out. The Minister will find that what is going to give them most trouble in the administration of this Act will be questions of promotions, transfers and so on, of individuals employed in these schools. I have no objection to the Minister delegating the power to the head of his department, and I have also an amendment to say that the head of the department shall mean the Secretary for Education, but I do not want him to delegate his power to any officer below that rank. I remember that after the trouble of 1922 in the Transvaal, when the Chamber of Mines issued their terms of recognition, under which they would meet the trade unions, they recognized the importance of this, and definitely laid it down that the questions of “appointment, promotion, discharge, etc.” were questions that could not be discussed with the trade unions. When Act 11 of 1924 was before this House, it left out all questions dealing with promotion, retirement or degrading, as being subjects that could not be dealt with by the conciliation board, as it is realized that it is one of the most knotty questions. These are the pin-pricks that cause most trouble, the little things which grow, and the Government will find themselves in a difficulty. If the amendment is agreed to, it will not throw more work on the Minister’s own shoulders—he has a hefty Secretary for Education.

I hope the hon. member will not insist on this amendment. The clause is really much more innocent than he thinks. He will notice that this clause makes provision for the appointment and transfer, not of members of the staff only, but all persons employed at schools. That includes boarding schools, too—not only permanent, but temporary staffs. He will see at once that if a native is employed at one of the boarding houses to do rough work, it is surely impossible for the Minister or the head of the department to make the appointment. It is something which has to be delegated to the head of that particular institution. If the hon. member insists on this amendment, and the House adopts it, it simply means that the administration will be very difficult in some cases.

That is the very point. I do not want it to be delegated to the head of a school. The paragraph refers to permanent and temporary men employed in tuition, and the appointment and transfer of these individuals should not be delegated to the head of a public school. In the higher ranks of the service there is an opportunity for those concerned to get a fair hearing and dealing. When you come below those ranks, a man is dealt with, and the Minister does not get a clear idea why the removal or other arrangements took place. On this question I want them to have direct access to the Minister or head of the department.

I think if the Minister will look up Clause 9, he will find that the Minister there reserves certain powers to himself in dealing with the staff. Clause 7 would be on a par with that if the Minister would agree to the amendment. The hon. member who moved the amendment is asking for the Minister to reserve to himself, or the head of his department, similar functions with regard to promotion.

In the one case a person is appointed to a position which is very subordinate. The Minister will, as a matter of fact, never delegate, even to the head of his department, the appointment or transfer of a member of the staff where that position is an important one. The Minister must be able to use his discretion. It is impossible, however, for the Minister to go into the appointment of one who sweeps or cleans the floor, and you must delegate that to the person on the spot. Where somebody is dismissed on account of inefficiency, that is quite another matter. I think, in that case, the Minister, or the head of the department, must be there to protect the interests of that official, even though that official served in a very subordinate position.

My experience in industrial matters is that the Minister is laying down quite a lot of trouble in store for himself if he delegates his powers outside the head of his department. If a teacher of a trade in one of these schools is discharged because the power has been delegated to the head of the school, he may never be able to place his case before the head of the department. I am keenly interested in this; I want an Act that is easily administered, and to place vocational training on a good, sound, solid basis—to give those employed in the schools some sense of security, knowing that they are in direct touch with the head. I want to criticize constructively.

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment. If it is necessary that important officials should know that before they are dismissed their case will go to the head of the department or the Minister, it is all the more necessary that the Minister should have the power to protect even the humblest employee.

The Minister can safely word this clause in a manner satisfactory to all concerned. The provincial education department has the control of the appointment and the dismissal of teachers, and the Minister should safeguard to himself the same rights in regard to these vocational training schools.

Will the Minister hold the clause over? A great deal of trouble will be caused if any members of the staff feel that they are unjustly treated and the powers under the clause are exercised by an understrapper. In industrial life half the trouble is caused not by head men, but by petty officials.

I realize that hon. members feel rather strongly on this point—I think unnecessarily strongly. It will cause unnecessary difficulty as far as the Administration is concerned if I accept the amendment, but I am willing to meet hon. members and to delete these words.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I move—

When anyone is charged with misconduct, I do not want the Minister’s power delegated to anyone below the Secretary for Education.

I have been so reasonable as to meet the hon. gentleman on the other point that I think it quite fair to expect him to meet me on this point. The two points are not the same. In the one case it is just the delegation to a subordinate officer of the department to appoint or transfer subordinate officials. In this case, however, we have to deal with an inquiry into cases of misconduct. In the public service it is very customary, if an inquiry of that nature is conducted, for it to be made not by the Public Service Commission, but by the local magistrate, who, knowing the circumstances, is very often much better qualified to inquire into the matter than, say, a member of the Public Service Commission. In the same way the magistrate delegated to take such an inquiry should be a much better man than the head of the department. The head of the department very often has not got the legal knowledge that the magistrate has, and which is very often required. I hope, therefore, the hon. member will not insist upon his amendment.

There is just one difference I will point out to the committee with regard to the system laid down here, and the one laid down in the Public Service Act. In the Public Service Act an inquiry is often conducted not by a member of the public service commission, but by a magistrate or other officer delegated to carry out the inquiry, but the duty of considering the result of the inquiry is not left to the delegated officer. The duty of finding him guilty or not guilty is a question for the commission. They report to the Minister and he comes to a decision. The same officer, under this section, who holds an inquiry can pronounce a person guilty or not guilty as the case may be, and there is the difference. The power of deciding whether a person is guilty or not guilty, and what shall be done with him should be held by the Minister and not the officer delegated. The duty of finding on the result of the inquiry should be left to the Minister or the head of the department.

What has just been mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) is made stronger and worse because the decision of the person making the enquiry is final, because the clause says—

This makes the objection still greater. I think it is better to leave it in the hands of the Minister and the department.

Look at lines 23 and 24.

†It is not final. If he finds the person guilty his duty is to report to the Minister.

That refers to the finding of the person. The person has only to investigate whether it is a case of a serious nature or not.

No, it says that if a person is not convicted, that the matter is then finished with, but that if he is convicted, whether the complaint is minor or major, the matter goes to the Minister.

I don’t want to be unreasonable and if the Minister will convince me this is going to help him to administer the Act better, I will agree. I want to help him to get a good Act. He should read this paragraph carefully. I want the Minister to keep the power in his own hands. He is placing it in the hands of the delegated member, not delegated by a magistrate and not delegated by the public service commission, but by the Minister himself. It is a pretty serious thing for a man charged with misconduct. Let him have the benefit of the highest possible authority. Let the Minister accept this amendment for it will make it easier to administer the Act for the reason that it will give these people employed a feeling of security, and there is nothing which helps efficiency in any line than the workman feeling he is secure in his position. If the Minister agrees it will help him to administer this Act far better than if it were left out.

I suggest to the Minister that the clause stand over because he might find in some of these clauses that he would like to retain the power of delegation to other officers and in other clauses it would be undesirable to have to delegate the power to other officers. Take sub-section (2) of Clause 12 [Clause read.] It puts a man in a very invidious position, sometimes as bad as finding him guilty, and I should object to the Minister having the power to delegate in such a case as this. In other cases it might be a good thing. This is a long clause, and we might make a blunder if we tried to vote this in, and I suggest it stand over. I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I move—

I have great pleasure in moving this amendment and I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment because the Bill is committing an injustice to defective children. We have the law of the country laying down that primary education for the normal child shall be free, and therefore we educate the ordinary children for a period of eight years at the State’s expense. On the other hand, you are not giving the defective child any advantage at all from State funds. You compel the parents of the defective child to pay for its primary education, whether that education be vocational or otherwise. I hold that there is a greater need for the State to provide free primary education for the blind, dumb or defective child than there is in the case of the normal child. I, therefore, trust that this House will support me in this amendment. We are now providing free education for the normal child at a cost to the State of, I believe, £19 12s. per year. Taking it at a rough basis, the State is contributing £160 for the primary education of the normal child. Every child in South Africa is entitled to free primary education, yet this Bill lays down the principle that a child who is blind or dumb or defective in any shape or form, shall receive no financial benefit from the State, but the parents will be compelled to pay the fees for the education of that child. It is true that there will be exceptions, on the basis of the parents pleading poverty, so far as the normal child is concerned. Why, then, should you not employ that free principle where the education of the defective child is concerned? It should be remembered also that children attending these schools will not be, as children attending primary schools are, producing nothing, but they will be taught to earn something through the vocational training they receive. Admittedly, their tuition will cost slightly more than that of the normal child, but on the other hand, when they are attending these blind institutions and other vocational schools of a kindred character, they earn a certain proportion of the cost to the State of their maintenance and education. I appeal not only to the Minister, but to the members of this House to play the game to the defective child, just as they have done in the case of the ordinary child, by providing the defective child with free primary education and vocational training.

I would like to move an amendment to this clause, Mr. Chairman, but I think you would rule me out of order if I moved the deletion of this paragraph, since the effect would be to increase expenditure. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that he is providing here for fee-paying pupils in these schools, whereas in the Transvaal, until the Government took over these schools, they were free, and, not only were they free, but they were doing an immense work in the country. Vocational training is really an investment for the benefit of the State. The best asset a country can have is a well-trained youth. You are going to have this anomaly in the Transvaal, that, while secondary education, which comes under the provincial administration, is free, vocational training has to be paid for. I want to ask the Minister to go into this whole question of whether vocational training throughout South Africa should be entirely free, and that this fee paying should be done away with. I want the Minister to look at it from the standpoint of an investment.

I hope the Minister will not entertain that. It is not free down here. They pay fees in the Cape Province, and the other two provinces. It is only in the Transvaal that they did not. Talking about investment, I suppose it is an investment to give certain education at a university. Does my hon. friend want university education made free?

Certainly. Why not?

Because the country cannot afford it. That is one reason. At the present moment the fees for vocational education are cheaper in the Transvaal than in the Cape Province. I am for putting them on a footing of equality. They can as easily afford to pay them in the Transvaal as they can in the Cape Province.

I hope the Minister will pay no attention on this matter to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). Although, generally speaking, we respect his views, we know in this matter his whole policy, with the idea of economy, is to restrict the opportunities for the poorer classes of the community to the fullest possible extent. I do not want to say a word against university education. I do say this, that university education, although ostensibly not free, costs the State something in the neighbourhood of £60 a year for every student, and in addition to that the student has to pay such high fees that the child of the average poorer man cannot afford to go to a university. So in reality, the State is paying for the education of the rich man’s son—and I don’t begrudge that—and precluding the sons and daughters of poor men from universities to a great extent. Vocational education was free in the Transvaal. It is no use telling us that in the Cape vocational training was paid for. It is no argument. The fact remains that in the Transvaal vocational training was free until the Minister of Education took over that part of education. It was done without the consent of the Transvaal Provincial Council.

Certainly not.

The executive came to an agreement without referring to the Provincial Council, and there was no idea among the people of the Transvaal that it would mean their having to lose the privilege of vocational training and having to pay for it. I submit to the Minister that the correct policy to adopt is, having centralized vocational training, to give the advantages the Transvaal has to the other provinces, but not to take away the advantages of the Transvaal and lower the standard to that of the other provinces. I suggest that the Minister hold this clause over and restore to the Transvaal the rights and privileges it had, and also secure to the other provinces the benefit of free vocational training. It will be a tremendous advantage, not only to those enjoying that education, but to the whole of the Union.

I would like to submit to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that the test for a child should be one of ability, and not how much money his parents possess. A child should have every opportunity of going forward and absorbing the highest education possible according to his ability. The hon. gentleman knows as well as we do that the fees fixed for university education in this country are sufficiently high to penalize the child of poor parents, and sufficiently low to enable the wealthier classes to have their children educated by contributions from the taxation of poor parents. I pay a certain amount towards university education of the wealthier classes, but cannot afford to send my children to the university. Irrespective of mental capacity, or whether they are able to absorb the higher education, the children of the wealthier classes are sent to the university. If a child is likely to prove a brilliant son of South Africa, the State should see he has an opportunity. We must have equality of opportunity, and we do not have it while we have this money test, If the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) gives this thought, he will see we are losing good material. It is no argument to say that because some people in the Cape are able to pay these fees these schools should not be free in the Cape, as well as in the Transvaal. There are many children who would prove really good artizans who are denied access to the schools in the Cape because they are charged fees. South Africa is losing an asset because an opportunity is denied to these children. The hon. gentleman has, I am sure, waxed very eloquent on the white community educating itself and learning arts and crafts to enable them to hold their own against the native and the coloured man; but the country denies them the opportunity. The poorer classes of the community should be helped and equipped and given the best training, but instead we are penalizing them by charging them fees. It is true that under certain circumstances the Minister may waive the payment of fees, but in that case the stigma of pauperism is placed on the child concerned. What proportion do these fees bear to the actual cost of the education?

The principle has been in operation for a long time.

If it is in operation and is bad that is no reason why we should continue it. The fees form only a small proportion of the actual cost, but they stand in the way of many children receiving higher education, and the result is that we are creating poor whites by denying children the opportunity of receiving vocational training. We want the Bill to go through and to do the best in the interest of the rising generation. As South Africans become more enlightened they will go in wholeheartedly for free education up to the university of every child who is capable of absorbing that education. South Africa should be a pioneer in this matter. There should be equality of opportunity for every child, whether of a poor or a rich man. I hope the Minister will agree to hold the clause over.

There are a number of very interesting figures in the Auditor-General’s report and according to a statement on page 225, the child of the upper middle classes, or rich people, who goes to the university is subsidized by the State to the extent of £52.06 per annum. For the child of the artizan and the lower middle class it is indicated that the Government meets a net cost which averages £9, so that the child of the artizan is receiving a subsidy for his education to that extent, whereas the child of the rich man is subsidized from the university to the extent of £52 per annum. The fees borne by the students themselves are not more than 22 per cent. of the total cost. The figures are given for previous years. In 1925 the university student cost £52.14, and in 1921 £69.4, whereas the technical college cost was £9.1. It proves clearly that the community as a whole is subsidizing the child of the rich man to the extent of five times the cost of subsidizing the child of the poor man. There are many children to-day who do not even go to the technical college or the vocational training schools, because their parents cannot afford the fees, and my idea is that we should remove this anomaly, not with the idea of increasing the fees of the one class, but of bringing the fees down in both cases. It is a serious matter.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee to-morrow.