as chairman, brought up the fourth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts (on Controller and Auditor-General’s Report, etc.).

Report and evidence to be printed and considered on 30th May.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

1. (1) In paragraph I, fifth line, after “polishing” insert “and thereafter to carry on such operations with the highest degree of skill and efficiency to the satisfaction of the Minister.”
2. (2) In paragraph 3, second line, after “such” insert “further.”
3. (3) In paragraph 4, second line, omit “of South African birth” and substitute “who are Union nationals”; eighth line, omit “South Aifrican birth” and substitute “Union nationality”; eleventh and twelfth lines, omit “of South African birth” and substitute “who are Union nationals.”
4. (4) In paragraph 5, thirteenth line, after “custom of the trade” insert “and for this purpose to pay to their skilled employees a premium in accordance with the custom of the trade in respect of every apprentice trained by them.”
5. (5) In paragraph 9, eighth line, after “whole of the” and insert “weight of the.”
6. (6) In paragraph 10, third line, after “years” and insert “and subject to paragraph 12 hereof”; fifteenth line, omit “of” and substitute “on.”
7. (7) In paragraph 11, third line, after “may” insert “,subject to paragraph 12 insert “;subject to paragraph 12 hereof”; fifth line, after “subjected” insert “by them first line on page 5, after” sawing or” insert “cutting or”; second line on page 5, after “Africa” insert “it being clearly understood that the rough diamonds so subjected, to one or more operations shall themselves each be under one carat in weight”; tenth line on page 5, after “fifth year” insert “but the export duty thereon shall be increased correspondingly in the event of any increase above the present percentage rate in the export duty on rough and uncut diamonds found in the Union and exported therefrom.”
8. (8) In paragraph 16, third line, after “and the” insert “transportation charges of.”
9. (9) In paragraph 17 (b), add “it being in the absolute riscretion of the Minister to grant such approval or from time to time to withhold it.”
10. (10) In paragraph 22, second line, after “Parliament” insert “and thereafter the obligations in terms of paragraph 5 hereof shall continue to be binding on the cutters.”
11. (11) Insert the following new paragraph:

25. This agreement shall be interpreted according to the law of the Union of South Africa.

Provided further that this agreement shall not be binding on either party until all the above modifications and the said formal amendments shall have been embodied therein and it shall have been signed anew by both parties and its date shall be the date of such re-signing and the five years referred to in paragraph 22 shall run from sue date.

I object.

Surely I must first explain what I am moving. I have already given notice of this motion to the Clerk of the House. If the hon. member will just leave it to me to deal with the matter as I think fit, unless he wants to object on a point of order. I have certain amendments to make on the motion and I want to explain them to the House.

Perhaps I might just suggest to the hon. Minister—some of us object to the acceptance of this report altogether. If the report is accepted, then all these amendments are of small importance, but what we object to very much is that a certain recommendation of this report has not been agreed to. That is this—

If I may just explain, the Minister wishes now to move the modifications in an amended form. If objection is taken to the amendments, then the Minister cannot move them, but some other Minister will be able to move them by way of amendment, so it will not be of much assistance to hon. members if they object. Further amendments may be moved later on.

It seems to me a most curious proceeding. I understand the Minister is not prepared to recommend the adoption of the report.

The Minister wishes to move the adoption of the report subject to certain modifications. The Minister was explaining what modifications he desires.

We want to help the Minister We understand he wants to move the adoption of the report. We are heartily in accord with that, but we understand the Minister objects to certain parts of it. He must move an amendment.

I think I was mistaken. I see that according to the notice which has been given the Minister does not wish to move the adoption of the report, but ratification of the agreement with certain modifications. Any other hon. member may move the adoption of the report by way of amendment.

The position is quite simple. There is a printed contract which went to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The committee proposed certain amendments in the contract. Some are included in this notice of motion, which I am now moving, and I gave further notice of amendments to the Clerk of the House. I now move that the motion, as printed on the order paper, with the amendments moved by me, and printed on the order paper, and with certain further amendments, of which I have given notice to the Clerk of the House, be adopted. Hon. members are all a little too hasty. They can thereafter raise all their objections. They can still move that the whole matter be rejected. If I explain the matter to the House in the first place it will be easier. I was saying that I move that the words I read out should be added.

It is obvious some amendment must be effected if the House finally adopts the motion; for instance, Clause 18 has to be altered—you cannot have an agreement with Clause 18 as it is. That is what I call a formal amendment. You are not precluded from opposing the whole thing.

made an interjection.

I think the hon. member should possess his soul in patience.

On a point of order, I suggest that the procedure proposed by the Minister, not only by the contingent notice of motion, but the additions he now proposes thereto, is out of order. I would ask you to refer to section 7 of Act 38 of 1919. [Section read.] It says “provided every such agreement shall not be binding on any party thereto, unless ratified by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.” The effect and meaning of that proviso were appreciated at the time this agreement was prepared. In section 18 of the agreement it will be noticed that there is a provision that the agreement shall be subject to the ratification of Parliament in terms of section 7 of that Act, and until so ratified shall not be binding on any party thereto. The notice of motion of the Minister asks the House to ratify this agreement, but the Minister, so far from asking the House to do so, proposes a resolution, in effect, to obtain authority to conclude an amended agreement. We have before us an agreement which has been signed and concluded between two parties. If it is submitted for ratification it becomes binding in terms of the Act, which in very clear terms provides that unless such approval is given it is not binding at all. So far from the Minister asking for the final approval of Parliament, he asks that the agreement should be amended. If Parliament adopts his resolution it is necessary to go back to the other party to obtain a new agreement, and this will not come back before the House for its approval. This is not a mere point of formality. It involves—The Minister has himself realized by the addition of amendments he has proposed— further consequential amendments on the agreement. There must be other formal amendments. If the agreement is examined it will be seen it is drawn on the footing that the date of the final approval of Parliament gives rise to certain rights and obligations. In section 14 provision is made for the lodgment of an additional guarantee of £5,000 if called upon by the Minister six weeks after the ratification of this agreement. If this House, in place of ratifying the agreement, gives leave to the Minister to execute an additional agreement, his right to demand that additional guarantee falls away. If reference is made to section 18 it will be seen that the concluding sentence provides for a number of obligations flowing from the date of the agreement, which shall be the date of the “final approval by Parliament.” The Minister has realized, if he induces the House to pass the contingent notice of motion, that it will be necessary to amend the agreement there and alter the date in some way. It will be competent for him to say it is clear there has been no final approval of Parliament in terms of this clause, and that he has obtained leave from the House to amend the agreement consequentially. That will not be subject to review by this House. If one refers to section (22) of the agreement a similar difficulty is at once apparent. That section provides that the agreement shall continue for five years from the date of its final approval by Parliament. However, by an Act of 1919 the power of Government to make an agreement of this kind was restricted. Parliament desired to retain the sole control over any agreement of this nature, it being apprehensive that unless it maintains that close control something might be done of which it did not approve. It added to the meaning of the word “ratification” something which makes the right of Parliament clear that no agreement can be binding unless it has been ratified by Parliament—in other words until Parliament has had before it the whole of the details and considered them in detail. The Minister has put to us a proposition just in the same way as if he had moved a resolution asking for authority for Government to make an agreement. Would such a proposal be competent? It is, I submit, for the Chair to give a ruling on the point. On such a motion the Minister could not have obtained the authority of Parliament to make such an agreement. I submit that a proposal of this kind, which is no more than an authority to make an agreement with the other parties, is no more than a request to this House to give its authority for the execution of such an agreement. The point I put is that such a procedure is incompetent under section (7).

May I reply to the point of order.

Certainly.

The reply simply is that the arguments of hon. members from beginning to end are unsound and absurd, because then the House would not be able to make a single innocent little amendment—even if we were all agreed upon it—without the contract going back to the parties and then coming up again. We shall then be able to go on ad infinitum. Every now and then any amendment will have to be signed afresh, and the agreement again come formally before the House. An adequate answer to the hon. member is, briefly, that he does not understand the meaning of the word ratification. If this House wants to tear up the whole contract to-day, and say that it is drafting a new one word for word, and that we can enter into it with the persons concerned, if they will sign it, then the matter is ended. We then need not come back to the House. That would be superfluous and unnecessary work.

That is not ratification.

Of course it is. “Ratification” means ratification and approval by the House, and if there is any legal doubt then the Government is prepared to take upon itself the risk of the legitimate doubt, and the court can subsequently settle the matter. This procedure accords in all respects with the rules of the House. It surely goes without saying that from the nature of the case in most instances some alteration or other will be proposed in such a contract, and that some of the alterations will be agreed to. As soon as that occurs we have then to come back to the House for a fresh ratification.

I do not follow the argument of the Minister. Ratification means something quite different from what the Minister is arguing—a position where the House actually makes a contract instead of ratifying a provisional contract. The Act of 1919 proposes that there shall be a provisional contract between the parties, and that contract remains provisional until it is ratified by the House. That ratification by Parliament is simply a matter of taking it or leaving it. There must be as between the parties a provisional agreement; the House is not going to make an agreement where the parties do not agree. In this case there is no agreement. We do not know that the parties are agreed on this amendment suggested by the select committee, and the further amendments suggested by the Minister. It is a matter of common occurrence that an agreement is brought before the House for ratification, and the function of Parliament is simply either to reject the agreement or to ratify it. I have never heard that ratification means the formation of a new contract in the House. The agreement remains provisional until ratification. The course open to the Minister is to take this thing back—it is not an agreement at all—to have it reformed and to come to a provisional agreement with the other party and then to ask the House to ratify it. That is the procedure we have always followed. We have done it continually, in cases like the customs agreement. The agreements are not made in the House. There is no other course open to us under the Act.

I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) is a little too much of a lawyer, and does not know his parliamentary procedure too well. The Government is responsible for this contract—whether it is legal or not that is nothing to do with Parliament. If the contract is illegal then it is for the person who thinks he is hurt to contest it in the courts of law. If the Minister has been wrongly advised the matter should be decided in the law courts. All that Mr. Speaker has to do is to ask whether the course followed by the Minister is according to procedure. I hold that Mr. Speaker can rule in no other way than that indicated by the Minister.

May I reply?

No.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein North (Mr. Barlow) says the Government is responsible. The Government of course, is responsible subject to parliamentary consent and ratification. The Minister made a very serious admission when he said he was not quite clear on that point. He spoke about the courts, and wished to convey the impression that if this House ratifies the agreement and makes a mistake in its action under the law of 1919, the conduct of the House can be tested in a court of law. If the House can be told by the court that its action is ultra vires of its own law what is then the position? The Minister seems light-heartedly to adopt the view that whatever we do here the courts can put aside. I should like to know in what position the House would be if eventually we were declared by the courts to have acted not strictly in accordance with the Act of 1919. The Minister may say it is a quibble. I cannot see that it is. An important constitutional point is raised. The agreement must be provisionally signed and agreed to by both parties, and it must be finally confirmed by the House.

How can it be final?

It remains final as between the parties.

The parties have agreed to all these alterations. It need not be a written agreement. I report it to the House.

I fully submitted that the agreement although agreed to by the parties on both sides, remains provisional in view of the law of 1919 until Parliament ratifies it. I ask where is the agreement solemnly signed? We cannot make a compact in Parliament. The parties who have come to the House here must be agreed upon their contract which must be duly signed and laid on the Table, and the Minister will move ratification. Where is that provisional agreement? A provisional agreement signed by the parties is not before Parliament. I think the argument that our interpretation of our own laws should be subject to the Supreme Court is a dangerous argument.

We have to deal with the document in writing now before us, not an agreement by word of mouth, and we must therefore take things as they are. Fortunately, we have a lawyer in you, sir, as Speaker, and you will interpret this document as a lawyer. What is the provision of section 7? It says—

I submit that it is impossible to ratify anything beyond the agreement which is already before the House. There can be no amendments. If a single amendment is made or agreed to, a fresh agreement must be entered into and brought before the House in terms of the Act. Our rules of order do not affect this in the least. Our rules to guide you in this particular instance are laid down by the Act of Parliament. It is said that if the House makes a mistake the court can right it. Surely not. It is for us to prevent mistakes as far as possible.

It seems quite clear to me that we are splitting hairs. There are two points I want to bring to the notice of the House. The first is that the House will be quite entitled to agree to the contract and any amendment the Minister proposes apart from any wording in Clause 7. If the Minister proposes the power should be granted to enter into a contract which contains the agreement and any amendments to it, then the House will be able to agree to it, and the Minister will be able to enter into the contract to-morrow, and it would at once come into full operation. That is the first point. The second is the point where the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), makes a mistake. It is clearly stated here that the contract is entered into, but provisionally only. The Minister can enter into a provisional contract, but because it is provisional, it is not binding, and the Minister is now asking for a confirmation of the provisional contract.

It is not a provisional contract.

The hon. member knows that he can enter into a contract without a signature, without a written agreement. What is the wording of the Act? It reads as follows. [Section read.] That does not contain a single word saying that such a contract must be signed. Where does “solemnly signed” come in? If the Minister says we are at one with the other party, that certain amendments must be made, then the Minister can just as well move it as the contract now, although it is not signed. If the Minister says that they have come to an agreement with regard to the amendment, then there is no further objection. The House can surely give instructions, e.g., to the Government by way of a motion to proceed with the agreement at once, and that proves that we have the power to at least make amendments in the terms of the contract, and only when the parties have not come to an agreement would there be anything to say for the arguments of the hon. members.

I understand the position is this, the Government have entered into an agreement with certain people for the purpose of establishing a diamond cutting industry in the country. Before the House was asked to express its opinion on the advisability or otherwise of adopting that agreement, that agreement was submitted to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The select committee went into the agreement and suggested to the House that it would be advisable to adopt or ratify it with certain amendments. In the select committee’s report, those amendments are tabulated. Now, while we are considering that report, the Minister comes forward and suggests that the agreement should he ratified with large numbers of other amendments which are not in keeping with the amendments suggested by the select committee, and I maintain that what the Minister now desires is, by a side-issue, to get this House to adopt an entirely new agreement, with amendments that have never been considered by the select committee, amendments of a very important character. I maintain that that is entirely opposed to our constitutional practice in this House or in the old Cape Parliament. I maintain that if the Minister desires that these amendments which he has moved here should be approved by this House, he must move them as amendments to the amendments suggested by the select committee when they are under consideration. The House, before adopting the select committee’s amendments, might desire, and very rightly, to re-submit the matter to the select committee, and give them an opportunity of taking evidence. The Minister has now proposed, not the adoption of the select committee’s report, but the ratification of the agreement with certain important alterations. I maintain that that is unconstitutional, and even if these amendments were to be considered in connection with the select committee’s amendments, you then have the position of an entirely new contract, and that contract will have to be laid on the Table of the House and its adoption moved in the ordinary form.

On a point of order, I see that this is going to cause a long debate. I am going to meet the matter in another way. I will get the parties to sign a new contract. That can be done this afternoon. In the meantime, I will withdraw the motion and simply put it on again.

On a point of order, surely the House will be entitled to have your ruling, Mr. Speaker, because the matter may come up again, before the Minister withdraws the resolution. I would point out some provisions which, I think, have a bearing on the subject.

If the House consents to the motion being withdrawn, I do not see that there is any necessity for me to give a ruling.

With leave of the House, motion withdrawn

I move— That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill authorizes the railway administration to modify the routes of certain three lines of railway sanctioned by Parliament in the Railway Construction Act of 1925, it having been found by subsequent investigation by the board that the routes as originally recommended by the board can be improved upon. The lines of railway are respectively the Joubertsdal-Wit-fontein line, the Empangeni-Nkwaleni line and the Derwent-Blinkwater line. The Bill also proceeds to ratify the acquisition of certain land by the railway administration in connection with the electrification of the Cape Town-Simonstown line and then, finally, it proposes to authorize the administration to close the line of railway from Valley Junction to Walmer, near Port Elizabeth. That is a narrow gauge line and, as hon. members will have seen from the report of the railway board, the public there will probably be much better served by an ordinary bus service. The working of the line there has become uneconomical, and the railway administration propose to take up the line.

What about the Sea Point line?

That is another story. As far as the proposed modification of the Joubertsdal-Witfontein line is concerned, that is done mainly with the object of serving the Northam settlement in the Rustenberg district. A small detour is made mainly to serve the Northam settlement. The result of that will be to lengthen the line by about 6½ miles at an increase of cost, according to the latest estimates which we have, of about £14,760. The matter is, of course, more fully dealt with by the board in its report, which I have laid on the Table. Then the Empangeni and Nkwaleni line, in that case, the length estimated in 1925 was 40 miles. The length of the route now recommended, including deviations, shown in red, is 37½ miles, or 2½ miles less than the 1925 survey. Here the deviation was made mainly in order to construct the line over easier country. There are easier gradients and easier curves, but notwith-standing the shortening of the line, the cost will be considerably more than the original estimate. The original estimate of £163,200 will probably be increased to about £217,344. In regard to the necessity for coming to Parliament at all for these adjustments, of course, as hon. members will realize, when the proposals are laid before Parliament in the first instance for the construction of certain lines, the surveys are necessarily not of a very complete nature. Afterwards, after closer examination, it is found necessary to make certain deviations. Broadly speaking, the law advisers have agreed that it shall be legal for Parliament or the Administration to make modifications providing the starting and terminal points remain approximately the same as provided in the Act, and provided that the mileage is not exceeded by more than 10 per cent. That seems a rather rough and ready rule, but broadly speaking we have come to the conclusion that in connection with important modifications, as these are, it would be safer to get the necessary parliamentary authority. As far as concerns these three railway modifications, they are all of such a nature that we thought it better to get parliamentary sanction. Then a word about the ratification of the action of the administration in acquiring certain pieces of land in connection with the electrification of the Cape Town-Sea Point line. It appears that just prior to the passing of the Act in 1922, it was necessary, in connection with the construction of masts, to go rather outside the track, in some cases a few inches and in some cases a couple of feet. Certain construction notices were served, and then the rights were given. Subsequently, it was found that seeing these notices were issued rather before the Act was passed, it was necessary to get formal approval. There are three cases involved. Satisfactory agreements have been arrived at in all cases on giving the necessary compensation, but the action which was taken could legally have been taken under the powers subsequently given. I think I have explained the more important positions.

What is the deviation at Blinkwater?

that was done mainly to serve the Steepoort Valley. The length of the line will be within the estimate, and it is proposed also not to exceed the estimate as far as the cost is concerned. There were various interests that made representations to have another route adopted, but it was found that Parliament, having sanctioned the line to commence from Derwent, it was not advisable to depart from what was originally laid down as far as the starting and terminal points were concerned. We are modifying the actual route, otherwise the line would have cost very much more. I inspected the line last year, and I pointed out to the parties concerned that if the other route was adopted I would not feel justified in proceeding unless it was resubmitted to Parliament, and the parties agreed that it would be better to stick to the starting and terminal points.

Are you shortening it?

Yes, I think it will be shortened by a few miles from the original preliminary survey made by the engineers. I move the second reading.

This Bill shows the necessity for care in the introduction of the Railway Construction Bills. In construction Acts no reference is made to reports of the Railway Board or to route plans. We are merely told that the line will commence and terminate in conformity with the Schedule to the Construction Act, and that the mileage will approximate to the mileage shown. The strange opinion referred to by the Minister is to the effect that only if you have a deviation of more than ten miles, the administration must come to Parliament again. I want to ask the Minister whether, in future construction Act, we should not have more detailed information.

We propose to take action which will obviate these misunderstandings.

I think it is very advisable. If we read the Auditor-General’s report, we find many cases where there have been large deviations, and Parliament has not been consulted. In regard to Clause 2, I cannot see why the Minister comes to Parliament for these powers, because it seems the Railway Construction Act of 1922 provides all the powers that are necessary. By Section 10 of that Act the Governor-General can, by proclamation, put into force a Transvaal Act which contains full powers. Then, Clause 3, sub-section (2) provides that the administration may remove all buildings, materials, appliances and other articles used or intended for use in connection with any land over which the railway which is to be scrapped, runs. I would like to refer the Minister to two previous Acts. [Extracts read.] The same provision is made in Act 48 of 1926. The Minister might explain why, in this instance, unlike in the instances quoted, land taken from a farmer is not to revert to him when the line is taken up. What is to become of the land? I think the Minister might explain why he seeks to take these powers without giving the right to farmers to reacquire their land.

With regard to the first point raised by my hon. friend, I may say we propose to do that and draft it so that probably we will not have these difficulties—so we can consider the matter is placed on a satisfactory footing. As far as the other points are concerned, I understand that in three cases expropriation notices were served before we had the necessary legal authority. By subsequent negotiations the matter was satisfactorily settled. Only three persons were involved, and were paid the necessary compensation. It was only in 1928 that the lew advizers advized us that our acquisitions in three cases were open to some doubt, and we proposed to come to Parliament. As far as the third point is concerned, I understand we never acquired the land, which will go back to the municipality. It was municipal land, and we never had legal title to it. It will revert back to the municipality.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

Clauses and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment; third reading to-morrow.

I move—

This is the usual Bill popularly called the “omnibus” Bill, which is intended to deal with a large number of matters of a financial nature, and many of them principally required to meet the requirements of audit. As some hon. members opposite know, various matters of this nature crop up from time to time, and, instead of dealing with them separately in a separate Bill, it has been found convenient by Parliament to deal with them in this manner; but I can assure the House that I always endeavour to restrict the Bill as much as possible to financial matters. I do not propose to explain at length the various clauses, and if hon. members want to have more information about them, it will be possible to deal better with them in committee. I want to point out briefly the object of the variuns clauses and the nature of the various matters with which we deal in the Bill. Section (1) deals with the contribution of surplus of £500,000 to debt redemption, and carries out the proposal I adumbrated in the budget statement as to the allocation of portion of the surplus. In section (2) we deal with a matter which has formed the subject of discussion by the Public Accounts Committee on more than one occasion—to provide for the acquisition by the Treasury of stock or debentures direct from the public debt commissioners without a public issue. My hon. friends will appreciate the necessity for that. Section (3) deals with the rebate of 20 per cent. on income tax, and lays down that it shall not affect the basis of our provinces levying their taxes on income. Section (4) provides for the exclusion of advances to schools, colleges, universities or training institutions. These loans were originally made from the exchequer, and inadvertently we provided in our Local Loans Act that these should be taken over. We have had some repayments made to the Treasury, and if in terms of this Act they should go to the Local Loans Fund there will be overlapping. Sections (5) and (61 deal with the alteration of the conditions of the repayment of loans made under the Higher Education Acts of 1917 and 1923. mainly to meet the requirements of audit, while the next section deals with the special case of the Durban Technical College, which was referred to during the budget debate where, owing to a curtailment of the limit imposed for extension, that is, to 10 per cent., this college found itself in financial difficulties, and I agreed to capitalize their interest payment and add one year to the redemption period to assist the position. In section (8) we do away with an anomaly in the Free State where a 1s. filing fee was charged in addition to the ordinary fee on documents filed for record. It applies only to the Orange Free State, owing to an old Act which was inadvertently not repealed when the Stamp Duties Act was passed later on. In section (9) wo deal with a position which has arisen under the Native Urban Areas Act, and we propose to lay down that fines for the contravention of the regulations under that Act shall go to the municipalities for the benefit of the native revenue fund, instead of the exchequer. The intention of Parliament probably was when the Act was passed that the fines should go to the native revenue account of the local authority concerned, and not the consolidated revenue fund as is the position now. I think the position arose through the drafting. The Treasury has agreed that this amount shall go back to the local authorities. Section (10) deals with the remission of the 5s. licence fee paid by indentured Indians and their descendants who leave Natal for India or elsewhere. It is an anomaly that this licence should have to be paid.

Do the Indians pay any other fees?

Yes, half-a-crown and £1 are charged under Union legislation. Section (11) is designed to bring the irrigation holding below the Hartebeestpoort settlement into line with other holdings for land settlement purposes where a maximum amount is laid down as chargeable to private persons, and we propose to put Government holdings on the same basis. Section (12) enables the Minister of Agriculture to give effect to the remission and adjustment of rates in connection with certain irrigation schemes as the result of amounts authorised to be written off in terms of the report with which Parliament dealt a few days ago. Section (13) legalises the acquisition by the Railway Department of the Roberts Heights line. There has been a long dispute regarding this line between the Treasury and the railway administration, and eventually the Treasury had to give transfer of the line to the Railway Department without a penny in return. I think it rather unfair, but our railway friends got the better of us. At one time they were prepared to pay a decent sum for the line, which is being worked at a loss, but we require it to bo kept open mainly for traffic to and from Roberts Heights. We have agreed to transfer the lines to the railways without any payment by them for capital expenditure. Section (14) deals with co-operative societies which went into liquidation and would receive the benefit of a write-off by the Land Bank of amounts advanced for maize received by the societies. It was provided that if such a society went into liquidation it would not be entitled to the amount authorised to be written off, but if they registered within six months the Land Bank would pay them the amount of the advances. Some of the societies are again forming themselves into co-operative organisations and we desire to extend the period of six months to two years. In Clause 15 we deal with the raising of money by the Electricity Commission which at present can borrow money in the United Kingdom only under the Colonial Stocks Act, but that is not applicable to a concern like the Electricity Commission, because it could not comply with the Act. Under the amendment the Electricity Commission will be authorised to raise money outside the Union, and then it would be able to repay the money we have advanced it.

Is the Electricity Commission going to raise its own money in the future?

I do not know, but we propose to give them the power. If they can obtain the money on favourable terms they might want to do so, and repay the Treasury, which I think very desirable, but it will depend on the state of the money market. The following clause deals with pension payments to the Government by the Cape Administration in respect of teachers of technical schools. Clause 19 provides for the disposal of the proceeds derived from the finds on State alluvial diamond diggings. I indicated to the House some time ago that it is the intention to use the receipts from the working of these State diggings for capital expenditure. We provide in this clause that the revenue account shall be reimbursed for the amount spent on the exploitation of the diggings, plus 10 per cent. on the export of diamonds on which a tax will not now be payable, and also for the payment of 15 per cent. which is equal to the tax which would have been paid to the revenue if these diggings had been exploited by a private company. That is fair and reasonable, and a similar principle is adopted in regard to gold mines on the Modderfontein area.

What will be the effect of Clause 3? Do I understand that the 20 per cent. rebate to be given to the Union taxpayer will not avail the Transvaal provincial taxpayer?

Yes.

In connection with the Calitzdorp irrigation scheme I was not present at the last meeting of the committee. I agree, however, to the suggestion in regard to the rates, but the Minister of Agriculture should be very careful not to do anything to Interfere with the legitimate rights of the owners of the upper land. I now understand that there are a few of the people whom it was the intention, under the select committee’s report, to take out of the scheme altogether, who have spent a considerable amount of money, and that some of them really had paid their rates up to the time that delay in payment had been agreed to. I hope the Minister will be extremely careful that nothing will be done that will really take away from people on the upper lands rights which, under the Calitzdorp Act, they possess—at least those of them who desire not to be legislated out of the scheme. I agree that the vast majority of the upper land owners in the Calitzdorp area are anxious to be legislated out of the scheme, but if there are a couple of them who desire to continue in the scheme, the hon. the Minister must be extremely careful, because the Agricultural Department may be letting itself open to actions at law for taking away rights which people originally possessed.

I would like a little more information with regard to Clause 15. The commission, I think, has liabilities for something like £3,000,000.

Nearer £7,000,000.

As a matter of principle, is it suggested that the commission should go and borrow, for example, in America? The natural place in which to borrow would be England. I understood the Minister to say he did not know whether the commission intended to borrow or not. Here we have the section altered to provide not only that the commission may borrow without reference to a particular Act to which it is now limited, but can also borrow not only in England, but apparently anywhere else. That seems to me to constitute a new departure.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that the whole case has been dealt with in the select committee. As my hon. friend knows, we went to the law advisers and they told us we should be perfectly right in doing what is proposed in the recommendation of the committee. We propose to write off another £80,000, and still those people in Calitzdorp are not satisfied to cut out the grounds which have been proved to be no good. The only thing to do now if they are not satisfied is simply to ask them to pay their rates. We cannot go on in the way we have been going on, and the people never paying anything. Ninety-five per cent. are satisfied, and now, for the sake of two or three people, we will simply have to nullify all the good work to put that scheme on a proper footing. Is it advisable, for the sake of the people who are now objecting, to let 95 per cent. suffer?

Could you not make provision for the people who have spent a lot of money on their holdings and let them pay whatever rates you think?

That is a question I will go into.

In connection with the Calitzdorp scheme which the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) mentioned, I want to point out that the unfortunate people are divided. There is a certain section which is dissatisfied with the suggested new position, and which will actually suffer considerable damage. I can, of course, not propose that the people should be compensated; a motion has already been introduced into the House to refer the Calitzdorp scheme back to the commission. The people have already had an extension for payment for so many years, and I hope that if they cannot pay the Government will not take legal proceedings against them. They have built houses on the works and planted trees and vineyards, and incurred great expense. I, therefore, hope the Minister will meet the people, and will compensate those who will really suffer damage. I do not want to say too much about the telegrams, because there are two sections, and the one will always be against the other. I hope the Minister will be merciful towards those whose expectations have been disappointed.

In reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Peninsula (South) (Sir Drummond Chaplin) in regard to the section in the Bill dealing with the raising of loans by the Electricity Commission, I do not think the hon. member wants to bind these people to a particular market for their money. I take it we should enable them to find their money on the most advantageous terms. The position at present is that they can borrow only in the United Kingdom under the provisions of the Colonial Stocks Act. My hon. friend knows they cannot comply with those provisions. The Union Government passed the necessary legislation, and we are able to avail ourselves of provisions of that Act, but this undertaking cannot, with the result that they cannot borrow money at all. What we propose to do here is to empower them, if they want to go into the market, to obtain their money on the most favourable terms. Naturally, if they find the best terms in the United Kingdom, they will raise their money there.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee to-morrow.

I see there is a large amount of money here for advances to pagter trainees, a total of £80,000, for the purchase of stock, implements, etc., maintenance allowances to families, and rent of farms. I would like some information as to how this money is going to be spent, and where.

I wish to briefly draw the attention of the House to the question of able-bodied men and women who are out of work in the country, for whom no provision is made either in the shape of giving them work or granting them relief. The Minister knows what has happened in regard to persons here in Cape Town. Able-bodied men and women who are out of work go to the Labour Bureau and are told by the officer in charge there that there is no work available. When these men or women say: “If you have got no work for us, can you give us some relief?” they are told by the officer in charge to go to the Board of Aid. This man or woman goes to the Board of Aid in Keerom Street, and the gentleman in charge there, who is paid a large salary, and has a large staff of investigators, treats this man or woman as if he or she were a rank outsider, and says, in effect: “You are able-bodied, you are able to work; go away, we have nothing for you.” The only crime that these people have committed is that they have got no work. The Labour Bureau tells them that they have no work for them, and the Board of Aid tells them they can do nothing for them, truly a nice state of affairs. I want to ask the Minister what he proposes to do in such cases. I notice in the Loan Vote you have a large sum of money set down for the relief of distress. I understand that about £500,000 is to be devoted to the relief of persons who are in distress owing to the drought position. If this large sum of money can be devoted to the relief of distress caused by the drought, I want to urge that this House should also allocate a sum of money for the benefit of men and women in the towns who are out of work and who are also suffering distress. I know the Minister has been approached on this question by certain people, and within the last few days we have had the humiliating spectacle of a number of able-bodied men hanging about outside the House while a woman sympathizer was collecting sums of money from members of Parliament to give these men and women who are out of work some relief. I say that is a disgraceful state of affairs. All due credit to the people who are liberal-minded and who have given help in this matter, but it is a very bad principle that these people who are in distress through no fault of their own should have to be the subjects of charity. What they want is work. I would like to ask the Minister what he proposes to do in regard to these able-bodied men and women, and whether he can persuade the Government to place at his disposal a sum of money which will enable him, with his Government Labour Bureau, to give these people, for whom no work is available, relief in some shape or form, without sending them to the Board of Aid or these charitable institutions, as is at present the case. South Africa is the only country in the world which treats an unemployed, able-bodied man or woman worse than it does the criminal. If a man or woman committed a crime, if one of them went into Adderley Street and threw a brick through a shop window, he would be very promptly taken in charge by the police and lodged in gaol, where he would at least have three meals a day and shelter; whereas, for these able-bodied men or women who are out of work no provision whatever is made. It is a shame to treat these men and women who are unemployed worse than we treat criminals. On the 11th February last an article appeared in the “Cape Times” on this question with these headings: “Unmusical Chairs of Unemployment”. “From Minister of Labour to Board of Aid and back again”. The man out of work is sent from pillar to post, and, incidentally, his wife and children in many cases are starving. There should be some provision made in the absence of a genuine Unemployment Insurance Act. If I had my way, instead of sending a man to the Board of Aid, as they do locally, I would say that this was work for the magistrate and the police. I would suggest that the magistrate should, in some way, be given larger powers to make the necessary investigations, and, where necessary, to give some form of relief, rather than to send a man to the Board of Aid, where they have nothing for him if he is able-bodied. Then I would like to know how far the scheme has progressed in regard to the work colonies. It seems to me that some of the men who are out of work in the Cape Peninsula at present are fit subjects for those work colonies. It is only fair, if a man is willing to work, that he should have work available for him. The demand of the unemployed is: “Give us work, or, if you cannot give us work, then maintain us”. That is their slogan. I want to impress upon the Minister the urgent necessity during this coming winter of doing something for these men, and we do not want it to be charity. Archdeacon Lavis, and those associated with him, say that it is a most pernicious thing to give charity to able-bodied men who are asking for work. I think the Minister agrees. He should have at his disposal some globular sum so that when men go to the Labour Bureau they can be told that if there is no work available, at all events, they will not be allowed to starve. If the Minister could do something in that direction he would be doing something for humanity, and receive the thanks of all interested in the social progress of this country.

I want to put forward a very much better suggestion than that in order to find work for most of these men, and that is drop the fixing of wages. It stands to reason that if the wages are always fixed at a fairly high rate for the highest paid men, there are always a certain number who cannot come up to that standard, and the result is unemployment. Wherever you have fixed minimum wages you have in all countries a certain amount of unemployment.

Where you have not fixed wages, what happens then?

You have far more employment. This method of giving fixed wages is resulting in throwing scores of men out of work in this city, and always will do so. If you make a fixed wage and make it fairly high, there are scores of men who cannot come up to that standard. I hope the Minister will take a note of that, that wherever you have fixed wages you will have unemployment, and men coming along and asking the Government to pay them. So long as you have this system you are bound to have unemployment in South Africa. You have it to-day in every big city, Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban.

I do not think we on these benches would consent to the doctrine laid down by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), because he wants to lay down the policy that the employer shall say what the wages will be.

Not at all. They would pay them what they are worth.

What the employer thinks them worth. What would be the result of it?

What is the result now? Out of work.

I would like to ask how you can do without unemployment. We will always have unemployment. You cannot get away from that, but the principle which the hon. member wishes to lay down would mean, if carried to a logical conclusion, that everyone would be employed at a starvation wage.

Nonsense! There is no minimum wage fixed in America.

There is a good deal of unemployment in America where there are four millions, 4 per cent. of the population, out of work. I should be very sorry to hear that 4 per cent, of the South African population are out of work. What about Australia, where there is a minimum wage? Whether you have a minimum wage or not there will always be a certain number of people out of employment. Will the Minister tell us what his idea of road construction is, and what he intends to do in other places? I hope it will be better than the road construction of the provincial councils. If he makes a success of it, and there is no reason why he should not, I hope he will take road construction out of the hands of the provincial councils and put another nail into their coffin. I want to put all the nails I can into the coffin of the provincial council. I am not speaking about the Cape, which has the best provincial council. My hon. friend says that roads in the Cape are made by convict labour, but I do not know that. I do think it is wrong to employ such labour when men are unemployed.

What must the convicts do then?

I am not going into that question.

I want to ask the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who is one of the captains of industry, whether the local captains of industry will band themselves together and employ these unemployed people at a reasonable wage? Of course, he knows that under the competitive system there must always be a reservoir of labour; in other words a certain amount of unemployment, and I only ask that, for the time being, a sum of money should be placed at the Minister’s disposal so that, in any case, these poor, unemployed men and women should not be absolutely destitute while work is being found for them.

The hon. member who has just spoken entirely begs the question when he asks that private employers should pay a reasonable wage. The whole question is “what is reasonable”? and on that the hon. member would no doubt differ from the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger); but, of course, there is a great deal of truth in what he has said. Owing to the wage board’s operations, to some extent, and the building agreement entered into under the Conciliation Act, a considerable number of people, some white and some coloured, have been thrown out of employment. Employers are not allowed to employ them unless they pay the high wages of the so-called skilled man, and some are unable to do that. However, I do not wish to labour that point, but to a considerable extent I agree with the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) that labour conditions are quite unsatisfactory. We have had a large number of people calling for charity; hon. members are called out and put their names to subscription lists for people who are said to be starving. The Minister has made a great deal of what the Government has done to relieve unemployment and to assist distress and to cure unemployment but the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) says that whatever you do you will have unemployment. That shows that his friends are not going to do away with unemployment. What is the system pursued by the Government? I asked some of the unemployed if they had applied to the Government, and they replied that the Government referred them to local societies and organizations which, in turn, referred them back to the Government. They also told me that the Board of Aid sends cases back to the Government. It would be very desirable if the Minister would tell us what his policy is in regard to these matters. On the loan estimates, there is an amount of £30,000 for advances to “pagter trainees”. What are they? Is it a fact that the Government merely refers the unemployed in Cape Town to the charity organizations, as there should be no room for misunderstanding? Either the Government must wash its hands of these unfortunate people, or provide them with employment.

I will take the opportunity of trying to explain what the attitude of the Government is in connection with this very important subject. The question of relieving distress and supporting charitable institutions is, under the Act of Union, referred to the provincial administrations. There is no provision in our administration for the relief of distress by rations or gifts of money, or relieving destitution in other ways. All these important duties are dealt with by the provincial administrations. Down here, they contribute so much per head on the £ for £ principle to the local Board of Aid, which grants relief where it considers it necessary. The difficulty has arisen in this way. The local Board of Aid has laid down a new policy, which says that, no matter how destitute a person is, if he is able bodied then he is not to receive rations or other relief. Up to recently, when people have been destitute, and applied to the local charitable organization, the latter did what they could out of its funds. They now send the able-bodied men to the Labour Department, and we do our best to provide them with work. In some cases, we succeed, but in other cases they may have to wait for a couple of weeks before, say, railway or road construction is started. We cannot put them all to work immediately they want it. The attitude of the Board of Aid makes the position very difficult. It will be a very good thing for South Africa when we have old age pensions, which will relieve the position so far as the old men are concerned, and when we have invalidity payments so that those who are unable to hold their own will be able to obtain some relief, and also when we have unemployment insurance. The Old Age Pension Commission is investigating these three points. The economics of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) go back 100 years. Civilization in every country has absolutely turned its back on the day when there is no fixing of wages, and when the employee is left to the mercy of the employer—a system under which people have to look after themselves and the devil has to take the last one. No matter how much the hon. member would like to do it, civilization will not go back. Without wage-fixing, the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) would have a very bad show indeed. His interests are safeguarded through the law society laying down a minimum scale of charges. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said that wherever you had wage-fixing you had unemployment. On the other hand you have only to take five years ago, when there was no wagefixing in South Africa, and there was five times the amount of unemployment that there is to-day. Take America, where there is no wagefixing; there are between 4 and 5 millions unemployed to-day. The banks can create unemployment. They have only to withdraw credit, and close down firms. Those who control the financial position can create unemployment any time they like. Sometimes it is necessary, in the banker’s interest, to do so. In order to save their money on one firm they refuse credit to another firm. I agree with the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) that some of these people, of course, lie back a little and do not want to work. I have had cases reported to me this morning of certain individuals looking for work who have been put into four, five and six jobs in the department, and will not keep them. There is only one thing to do with those people. They should be taken to the magistrates and sent to a labour colony.

How is that going on?

As I explained the other day, the buildings are ready at Elgin Settlement, and we hope to start there in the very near future. The difficulty has been in getting the right person to take charge. I think we shall be able to take a hundred, at least. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) wants to know about the £80,000. The hon. member knows my predecessor started this tenant-farmer scheme, and he started placing tenant-farmers out to private owners. For various reasons which have been explained from time to time, that has not been a success. When the farmer has been all right the man has not, and when the man has been all right, the farmer has not, and when both have been all right, the land has not, or the drought has hit them. We have had no end of difficulties, and so we extended the scheme so that the Government itself became the owner and opened up large farms in the vicinity of Hartebeestpoort. We take the men through the training farms and pass them on to these other schemes. Altogether we have nearly 1,000 men being trained under that vote with their wives and families. With regard to the roads scheme, that has come about in this way—the department has had to make its own roads through 15 miles of the Hartebeestpoort area, and we have also been making roads for the Lands Department. It often happens when we try to get the provincial administrations to co-operate with us with a view to employing civilized labour, there are many difficulties, and we cannot succeed. We have put this money down so that it will enable us to extend our civilized labour on road work beyond what we have been able to do.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.22 p.m.

I am sorry to observe that the Minister of Labour is not in his place. Can we be given to understand who is in charge of the vote?

All right.

I think the Minister of Labour should be called in. When the Labour estimates were under discussion, there was considerable difficulty in our stating our case completely because of a lot of extraneous matters being brought in, and, finally, the application of the closure was moved against us as a means of preventing our representing our full statement of the case in regard to the question of the expenditure of money on the unemployed. I understand that under the estimates now before us a certain sum of money is to be voted towards the unemployed, and this would be the proper time for us to ascertain whether this sum includes the proposed payment of £15,000 to Mr. Rosenberg as a loan for the purpose of enabling him to pay to each tenant-farmer a sum which, in the maximum is to be £150, and a less amount for those farmers who have not worked there for the 22 months. Would the Minister let us know whether this payment under Loan Vote “M” includes the sum which it is proposed to pay to Mr. Rosenberg for the purpose of liquidating the claim of the tenant farmers?

Yes, the is so.

I want to point out how unfairly these men have been treated by the Minister. I have already stated that the contract sent to the tenant farmers—people who are admitted by the Minister to be of a very backward class, unable to defend themselves— indicated that Mr. Rosenberg was prepared to allow them £10 per acre for every cultivated acre of sugar cane and yet the payment made to these men was nothing like that sum. I want to point out that the Minister of Labour, by his action, placed these tenant farmers at a very unfair disadvantage. Their own letters show that the Minister himself had signed the cancellation of the contract on the 25th April when by the 28th of April he had not consulted these men as to whether they desired cancellation of the contract and the release of Mr. Rosenberg from the terms of the contract, but on the 28th these men were approached and called upon, practically with the pistol at their heads, to sign a release for Mr. Rosenberg. I propose to read the telegram that I received from one of these men on this subject—

Where is the fairness on the part of the Minister in taking four months to consider the terms of this contract and giving these unfortunate people less than four hours? They were required to indicate there and then whether they were prepared to release Mr. Rosenberg from his contract and were called upon to sign a document the contents of which have not yet been disclosed to this House by the Minister. I maintain it is our right to know in what terms the Minister required these people to sign a release for Mr. Rosenberg. Here was a contract which these men were a party to. They had, by their labour, endeavoured to fulfil their part of the contract, and the least the Minister could have done was to have consulted these men before he signed any release of Mr. Rosenberg from his obligations. Furthermore, he should most certainly have given these men an opportunity of deciding after mature deliberation and consideration whether they were prepared to release Mr. Rosenburg from what they considered to be a lawful and bind contract.

Are you not sick chewing at Rosenberg yet?

I am familiar with the tactics of the hon. member and his friends. Abuse is the only stock in trade of members who speak in that way, but I am not to be deterred by the hon. member or anybody else who may choose to adopt these methods. I have brought forward my criticisms in this House in a proper manner, and I shall continue to do so. The hon. member is indulging in a vain attempt to be facetious, but the fact remains that they have nothing but abuse, and someties coarse abuse, to defend these actions which they cannot justify in this House. It has been suggested that we have come forward with criticisms which we, ourselves, have been instrumental in creating. I never had any communication with these men until the crisis had been reached between Mr. Rosenberg and the Minister, and not until the Minister himself had practically released Mr. Rosenberg from his contract did I receive any communication from the tenant-farmers at Doornkop, but since that date I have received communications which show, very plainly, how these men have been treated.

You made speeches before that.

The hon. member is the last man who should reproach anybody with making speeches—

I am not reproaching you, I am merely stating a fact.

—the hon. member who himself inflamed people to the point of revolt in 1922, and when his misguided dupes shed their blood, he himself was not there.

The hon. member should moderate his language.

It’s all right, Mr. Chairman, he could not tell the truth if he tried.

Order. Withdraw.

Is the hon. member entitled Mr. Chairman, to say I could not tell the truth if I tried?

The hon. member is not entitled to say that, but the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) should not egg the hon. member on to say things that he should not say. The hon. member himself should not be so offensive.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, should not the hon. member withdraw that unworthy remark?

I consider the language used by the hon. member for Illovo, although parliamentary, was offensive, and that led to the remark made.

If I may be permitted to address myself to the matter we are dealing with, without the intervention of anything in the nature of an attack against me, there will be no cause for any remarks from me which may be considered offensive.

I will be very pleased if hon. members will allow the hon. member for Illovo to make his speech.

One of the letters I have received states the matter very moderately and in a manner which cannot fail to appeal to hon. members. It says—

Here there is a gentleman apparently sent by the department to inquire into the grievances of these people, and he told them that the existing contract was a fraud.

Who is the gentleman?

My informant does not tell me. I do not think that he could give the name, of which he was not aware himself. It was impossible for him to do so. The letter goes on to state—

The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has now brought the matter before the House more than a hundred times, he has placed questions on the order paper, he has made long speeches on the budget about it, and has debated the matter in every possible way, and he still continues, and this afternoon reads documents about a person who, according to his statement, is employed in the Department of Labour, and before the contract was cancelled was supposed to have said that the whole contract is a fraud. He was then asked for the name of the person and he replied that he did not know. We have to sit here day after day listening to such speeches, while the Minister has repeatedly given a full explanation of the matter. Rut nothing satisfies the hon. member. He goes on repeating the same little thing. But does not the hon. member see that every day he delays the House it costs the country enormous sums of money. We are on the eve of prorogation, but the hon. member keeps on riding some hobby-horse—because it is a hobby-horse—he has nearly broken his back. We like listening when the hon. member brings a matter before the House, but the way he is acting in this matter is enough to make the most patient man lose patience. We sit here every day and listen to letters which he has got from somewhere, and if he has no letters then he has discovered something else. It is irresponsible of the hon. member to make quotations when he does not even know who the persons are who make the statements.

What would you do if you knew the men?

In any case we would then know who it was who was talking in that way We surely do not sit here to listen to street talk? The Minister has explained the whole matter from beginning to end, and I want to ask the hon. member to give us a chance of going home next Friday.

Might I ask the hon. member who has just spoken not to be so impatient in the matter. After all, we are singing the nunc dimittis of this great, grand experiment of socialism, are ringing down the curtain of Doornkop, and unless it comes on again in the report of the Auditor-General, it will never again be heard of. This great, grand experiment, the launching of which the Minister announced with such great éclat some two or three years ago, has come to a finish, and, under the circumstances we ought to know how it came to an end.

Here we have such a big song about Doornkop, and yet, from 1914 to 1919, ground was bought by the late Government and given to people who were recruited, and when they returned, maimed and broken, they were put on farms where they could not make an existence. This Government has written down millions in regard to these farms.

What has that to do with it?

The sympathy of the hon. member did not go out to these men, but they were ruined. This Government helped those men, but hon. members on the opposition benches helped them into their slavery.

What did you do?

I was not under any obligation to them, and did not make any promises. I did not recruit them to go into the war. When they could not buy land themselves, the Mate Minister of Lands bought land and made the poor settlers pay the prices.

You are a profiteer.

No, it was all land bought from supporters of the South African party Government. It was a bad business for the man who had settled on the land to make a living on it. It was left to this Government to find relief for those poor devils.

Are references to his Satanic majesty permissible?

I can quite understand when men make promises and want to buy a half-way house to heaven. Now their sins find them out. For the sake of argument, let me admit that the experiment at Doornkop failed, but this is not the first one.

Mr. Chairman, I take it this matter really concerns the Lands Department. Shall we be in order, in replying to the hon. member who has spoken on a lands question on the Labour Vote?

It is a vote on land settlement.

The two matters are very much involved, and one hardly knows where to draw the line.

Hon. members opposite want to create a smoke screen in order to cover up their own misdeeds in times gone by.

I do not want to go fully into matters that the hon. member (Mr. Mostert) has raised, but I ask him to remember that after the war very strong pressure was brought to bear from all sides on the Government to place returned soldiers on the land. With that in view, the Government made land purchases in various parts of the Union. At that time there was a great public demand for land, and naturally the price went up, no doubt the purchases by the Government assisting in the upward trend.

Keep it until next session.

I admit that injudicious purchases were made, but it is not a question of party, for every decent minded man in the country wanted to see the returned soldiers treated fairly, and every member of the Crown Lands Committee was intent on helping those in distress. With regard to the question under discussion, I do not think we quite realize that an endeavour has been made in the way of State enterprize in farming. Doornkop has been a dismal failure, and I hope no Government will ever again embark on a similar enterprise, and I trust sincerely that the iron and steel industry will not prove to be an equal failure, though I fear it will be.

We are indebted to the Natal members for the light they have thrown on the Doornkop undertaking. Who are eventually going to benefit from that scheme—the settlers or the man who sold the land? We are all anxious to see our industries progress, and to find work for the unemployed. Recently the manager of a Cape Town firm of tailors told me that they intended to enlarge their premises and had bought a piece of ground on which to erect a factory in which they could employ four-times as many people as they did to-day. Last year he came from England to start building. He showed me the plans winch had been drawn up by the architect, but when he found out the state of affairs in regard to factory legislation and wage determination, he decided not to proceed with the extension. He said, “Mr. Boydell is to blame for our not putting up our extra building. If Mr. Boydell is allowed to continue on his present path, I will break up my business here and go back to England.” The Minister must be most careful in his selection of men for giving work to. I know cases where, through work being found in the towns for the unemployed, men were induced to leave the country. The Minister and the Railway Department should be very careful to ascertain where and how men were previously employed before they give them work. I know of cases where the men first obtained the promise of work on the railways, and then gave notice to the farmer where they had quite good jobs. For instance, the department should find out whether applicants for employment are really out of work. I am sure there are cases of men being put in jobs to-day, but because they want a softer billet or do not desire to work at all, they throw up the position and once again become unemployed. Such men should be told that no further work will be given to them after they have had one more trial.

I wish to point out that the information we have from the Minister is with regard to the release of Mr. Rosenberg from his obligations to the tenant farmers. The committee has not had information as to the tenour of the document which the tenant farmers were called upon to sign. They complain that they were given no time to consider the effect of what they were called upon to do, and that they signed that document under pressure on the part of the officials who informed them that Mr. Rosenberg was about to leave for England, the Secretary for Labour had to come to Cape Town, and the principal welfare officer had to go to Pretoria. Every man had to sign there and then. I am reading from a letter written by one of the settlers—

They complained that certain cattle were issued to them by Mr. Rosenberg as their property, and that when these cattle increased the yearling calves were taken away from them and were sold independently of the cows. He says—

That is the burden of his cry. There are innumerable letters from these men, and in every case they complain of the pressure brought upon them by the Minister to sign that document on April 28, when insufficient time was given for consideration of the whole subject. I want to point out to the Minister, too, that the contract that was sent to these men originally set out to be a copy of the contract entered into between Mr. Rosenberg and the Secretary for Labour, but when the clause was reached, which dealt with the sum to which they were to be entitled in the case of surrender of their plots, a slip of paper was pasted over that clause, and on it was typewritten—

Here was a clause of the contract which only gave them £3 15s. That clause was covered over with a slip which drew their attention to the more favourable undertaking, £10 per acre, which Mr. Rosenberg had given them. That more favourable undertaking amounted to a promise of £10 per cultivated acre, and was enclosed in the contract. No man can read this contract without coming to the conclusion that these men were deluded into supposing that they were going to get £10 an acre, and I hope the Minister will give us justification for his action in pressing these people to sign the release to Mr. Rosenberg under the circumstances I have indicated. The Minister has not told us in what terms that release is worded. The farmers themselves are unable to say. There is not one of them who has a copy of that document. It is only natural they should sign in the circumstances without taking a copy of it. They feel they have not been fairly treated. If the Minister will give me that assurance, the vote will go through without any further difficulty. If not, I must press for a statement.

As far as I am concerned, and as far as the department is concerned, absolutely no pressure whatever was brought to bear on these people in spite of what might be said to the contrary. I can show the hon. member a specific instruction which I sent by wire that under no circumstances must anything be said or done which did not place before these men the clear right that they’ had the option either to remain under the old terms, or to take the new terms and’ the new conditions. I specifically sent a further wire to the Secretary for Labour, Mr. Cousins, who went down there, and after he was there I sent him a wire. I said—

of choice, a free option.

I made it as clear and definite as possible, and for the hon. member to come and say I pressed them into signing a document in which they cancelled their agreement is not true. The very opposite is the case. The Secretary for Labour was here the other day and the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) could have discussed the whole matter with him. I asked him, “Did you give these men an absolutely clear idea of what their position was?” He said, “I could not make it any clearer than I did. I put the four alternatives to them.” I said, “That is all right. If you tell me that, I am satisfied.” I anticipated something like this, and it was for that reason I made my instructions doubly sure by telegraphing them again. Every one of the men said without exception, “No matter what the alternative is, we want to cancel our agreement as far as Mr. Rosenberg is concerned. We do not want to continue in partnership with Mr. Rosenberg, and we look to you to do the best you can for us.” We are doing the best we can for them. We are giving £150 to each of those who has been there 18 months and over. We are finding them new places, putting them on other settlements, sending them to their homes, or providing for them in some way or other. More than that it is impossible for anybody to do. For the 18 months’ work they have done they will get £250. That is the amount they have actually received in cash for their 18 months’ work, £250 and free housing and free medical attendance. They could have remained on under the old agreement if they had wanted to do so, but they said they would not do it and they cancelled the old agreement. I gave specific instructions that they must have a free hand to do as they liked.

I do not quite understand. These men are being compensated with £150 and they have got to leave the place. Last year the Minister got up and said he expected that there would be £70,000 that they would get out of sugar on that estate. That was the value of the crop. That meant that every one of those settlers would get out of this sugar £700.

That is not correct.

I do not quite see whether the Minister is shrinking the point now or he stretched it last year. The thing is that something is wrong with his figures. Either these men are suffering a tremendous injustice or the Minister gave us wrong figures last year.

I would like to say one final word on this subject. The Minister will not object to that, because my attitude throughout has been perfectly consistent. I think the Minister said in the past that I have approached this matter from an absolutely impartial standpoint. On the 7th June, 1927, the Minister said—

I have tried throughout the criticisms of the past few years to approach this subject from the point of view "of the tenant-farmers, so that the Government should do what was necessary to establish them in a proper condition at Doornkop. I went on last year to say this—

I still believe that. I do not think for one moment that the Minister has not done all he possibly could to help these men on leaving. But he set out to establish a certain object, to establish a sugar settlement run by white labour in Natal, providing a future for these 100 people. They have worked extraordinarily well. They put their heart and soul into the whole business, and now, at the end of three years, the Minister writes failure to the whole scheme and sends these people back to where they came from, or to some other place in the Union. All their hope is gone. All they have been dreaming of these years has proved a delusion. I think the Minister has gone wrong in not sticking to his guns and saying: “We will see this thing through; if it cannot be carried on on the basis on which we started, then we will carry it on on a different basis; but we will carry on”.

What is the use of the hon. member talking like that? He said from the inception that the mill was too small, and that the scheme was unsound, and that it would never succeed, and now he says we should have bought it out lock, stock and barrel. The hon. member cannot shift his ground like that. He said it was unsound from the start, and he went into figures to prove that the scheme, economically, would never pay. Now he says that the Government should have bought the thing out and run it as a State organization. The hon. member stands condemned out of his own mouth. Arguing with him becomes impossible.

The hon. members in that corner must make up their minds what they really want. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has told us that we should make this a State affair, “socialism in our time”. The hon. gentleman sitting alongside him has just got up and cursed with bell, book and candle anything that has the State in it. What can we make of the South African party? Two gentlemen sitting on one bench alongside of each other, the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) saying that the State must not handle this sort of" thing, while the other hon. member says: “Please in our time give us State socialism”. The Minister is quite right, he cannot deal with these people. It seems to me that hon. members on that side are glad that this scheme failed, if it did fail.

They made it fail.

They made it fail to a large extent, and now they want to say to the country: “This is a failure, of State socialism ” and the leader from Natal, as I understand the hon. member for Zululand is, says “The thing has failed; we now want State socialism”.

The speech which the Minister has just made shows how very little he understands the whole economics of the position. I am surprised that a responsible Minister should handle a subject like this when he shows such a little knowledge of figures. He does not now understand the case I put up. He does not realize that my charge is that he was attempting to do something which no business people can do. He is attempting to pay off the whole of the capital of the concern in a few years before he attempts to provide for any return to people most intimately concerned. What would be the effect on the proposed iron and steel industry if started on the economic basis of Doornkop— that is that the £5,000,000 capital had to be paid back by the industry in five years at a million a year. That is the Doornkop basis. The whole basis of the scheme was rotten from beginning to end, and to hear the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) talk— well, he should confine his attention entirely to milk. I have not said the State should run this concern. It should be run as a co-operative concern. I have had nothing to do with the initiation of this business at all. From the commencement I denounced the Minister having to do with Mr. Rosenberg in a scheme like this. But I do say that the State should lend the money to these people to turn it into a co-operative concern, not into a State-run concern.

Umfolozi.

The Minister has tried to cast a slur on Umfolozi as if Umfolozi could be at all compared to Doornkop, but he has not told the House of the burden that he laid on the backs of the people of Umfolozi by insisting when the mill was removed to another site it should be removed by the Public Works Department.

You built it under the water.

The Minister does not know anything about Umfolozi.

Read the Lands Report and you get the whole history.

Yes, read page 43 of the Lands Department’s report of this year, and you will find the truth of it. The mill was not built at Umfolozi by the co-operative company, as the Minister appears to imagine. It was built by an English company, under an agreement with the Government of the day. The agreement, under which the company put up the money for the mill, was the ordinary tripartite agreement subsisting between millers, planters and Government. The Government chose the site for the mill, and the company invested its money on the site so chosen by the Government. In 1918 the river came down in flood, devastated the whole area, washed the village away, drowned a number of people, and deposited many feet of mud in the mill. What happened?

You came to this Government to get the money to put the thing right. That is what happened.

The House will never get the truth from the Minister, that I am convinced of.

Do you deny you came to the Government for the money?

We got the money, certainly, but what does that mean? Let me explain what really happened and begin at the beginning. Umfolozi is one of those sugar settlements in Zululand which were settled years ago, and have proved extraordinarily successful. These sugar settlements are the only settlements established in South Africa which have really shown any degree of prosperity. Each settlement consisted of an area of some 20,000 acres or more, which was cut up into 300- or 400-acre farms. The settlers were compelled, in terms of the lease, to grow sugar cane. The Government then entered into a contract with some persons outside to erect a mill in each of these settlements, and the settlers were bound, under the lease, to send cane to the mill and receive a certain settled price by an agreement drawn up by the Government, but entered into between planters and millers. The same thing happened at Umfolozi. Planters, of whom I was one, took up these farms. In terms of the lease, they all had to grow cane and send it to the sugar mill, which was built by an English company under contract with the Government. In 1918 the whole settlement was devastated by flood. The mill was badly damaged. The company ultimately found itself unable to go on. It could not raise money to put this mill into proper condition. It required much further capital to deal with the increased amount of cane which was being grown in the settlement, and its machinery was of an old type. After the flood, they gave it up. The company had spent about £400,000. The settlement was left high and dry with complete ruin staring everybody in the face. It, had no milling capacity at all, yet they were bound by the terms of their agreement to grow cane on this settlement.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, what item does this come under?

It does not come under anything, but a remark has been made to which the hon. member wishes to reply. But I shall not allow any further discussion.

The late Government, realizing that it had some responsibility in the matter, agreed to an advance of £200,000 to a co-operative company which was formed by the planters themselves to purchase the mill and purchase additional machinery to put it in order. That was done, the mill remaining on the existing site. It was reasoned, and with a considerable amount of logic, that the flood was not likely to occur again in such a devastating way. The planters had every reason to believe that. But, in any case, it was impossible to remove the mill, as the sum available did not permit it to be done. So they made the best of a bad job, they put it in order, they introduced additional machinery, and they started off for one year, and crushed very successfully. They met all their obligations to the Land Bank and they paid the planters a very good price for cane, and started to get the mill ready for the following year, when another flood came. This was much more severe in some ways than the previous one. It deposited a considerable amount of sand over the mill machinery, and it became imperative to move the mill to a new site. It was then that the planters came to the Government, and the Government generously agreed to assist the company to get the mill moved to a new site.

Which Government?

Your Government. The Minister of Lands went to Umfolozi and inquired into the whole case, and agreed it was necessary that this should be done to save the whole settlement, When the money was voted by the Cabinet, the present Minister of Labour said the work of removal should be done by the Government, and should not be given out to private contract. What was the effect of that? [Time limit.]

T have no desire to delay the passage of this vote, but I feel I am justified in taking this opportunity of giving the House one example which goes to show how unreliable are the utterances of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), and also showing how readily the hon. member can jump to conclusions, and these conclusions usually the wrong ones. When this matter of Doornkap was last under discussion, I made a suggestion to the Minister of Labour that he might confer with the hon. member for Illovo with regard to moving the settlers from Doornkop to Baynesfield, in the hon. member’s constituency. In reply, the hon. member stated that I had placed a question on the Order Paper dealing with the Nels Rust Estate, and then had run away from it. I wish to give briefly the particulars in connection with my alleged running away from the question I put an the paper. On Tuesday, 31st January, I asked the Minister of Agriculture a lengthy question in connection with the administration of the Nels Rust Estate.

Is this in order, Mr. Chairman? What has this got to do with the vote under discussion?

The wording is so vague that one does not know where to draw the line— “General measures to be taken to meet unemployment”. I think Doornkop has something to do with unemployment, or with employment.

Not Baynesfield.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was going to explain why he ran away from a question which he had put on the Order Paper, and while we would all be glad to hear the explanation of the hon. member, we hardly think this is the appropriate time for giving it.

May I ask the hon. member for Maritzburg (Mr. Strachan) whether the question to which he refers has anything to do with the Doornkop qeestion?

This is a very simple matter. The statement of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has been splashed all over the newspapers in my constituency. I think I am entitled to raise the subject, especially when it is a matter bearing on the vote under review. Hon. members have been dealing with Doornkop, and when the hon. member gave utterance to that statement, he was also dealing with the matter of Doornkop. Information had been sent to me that the board of trustees were entering into negotiations with the 1820 Settlers’ Association to bring young men from England to settle on the Nels Rust Estate.

answered [reply partly quoted].

The hon. member cannot discuss Nels Rust under this vote. There has been no attack on the hon. member. I have allowed the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) to reply. It is a matter in which he is personally implicated.

made a reference to road construction.

If the settlers are taken from Doornkop and placed on the Nels Rust Estate they would be very handy there for building roads in Natal.

No, that is too far fetched. I am sorry I cannot allow the hon. member to pursue this.

Do you rule, Mr. Chairman, that I am not to be allowed to answer what I was prevented from replying to because the closure was applied? I intended to bring this matter forward when it was actually under discussion, but was prevented from doing so on the vote coming to a termination.

I am sorry that the debate, which was closured, cannot be carried on now.

The hon. member who just now sat down referred to Baynesfield as a possible field for settling men under the 1820 Settlers’ Association. Might I tell him he is quite wrong. This estate was only to provide a site for an institution for the training of young men and send them out into the Union to settle as farmers.

On a point of order, if the hon. member can talk about the Baynesfield estate—

I was not making an attack, but giving information, pure and simple. I see the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has raised the question of road construction. Is the Labour Department confining itself to road construction at Hartebeestpoort, or are they extending it elsewhere?

In that district.

What is the total amount expended on the various departmental settlements in the Hartebeestpoort area?

£16,000, under the Labour Department.

From the initiation?

Yes.

I see £25,000 down for the purchase of land for tenant-farmer settlers. Where is that land? Is it under irrigation or dry land; what is the approximate area of the respective holdings? I want also to draw attention to the fact that it would appear that we have not a dual, but a triple language in this country. Under sub-section (1) there is good English in “Advances”, good Afrikaans in “Pagter”, but pretty bad Boydellese in the word “trainee”! In the Afrikaans version we have “voorskotte aan aspirant, etc.” I think that can be understood by most people, though we might have “aspirant” replaced by some other word, but I hate the word “;trainee.” Why not say “probationary farmer”? “Pagter”, I think, ought to be left out in the English version. There is no disgrace in being a tenant-farmer, so why not use that term? Will the Minister kindly tell us what a “trainee” is? I know what are learners, pupils and probationary tenant farmers, but I do not know the species “trainee” !

I have very grave fears indeed that the young men who are being brought out to this country by the 1820 Settlers’ Association, in conjunction with the Board of Trustees of the Nels Rust Estate, will sooner or later find themselves in the ranks of the unemployed, and I put a question on the Order Paper asking for particulars. The Minister of Agriculture replied. In the last paragraph of the question—

May I point out that there is not a single reference to the 1820 Settlers’ Association in the hon. member’s question of 30th January, 1928.

The Minister stated that the board would be—

It seems to me that the hon. member is trying to pursue the same subject to which I put an end.

I wish to point out that the Minister seems to be badly informed if he is under the impression that the tenant-farmers at Doornkop have no ground for complaint with regard to the termination of this contract. Here it is shown that the Minister had cancelled that contract before he consulted them. Whatever Mr. Cousins may have said to them, it was after the cancellation of the agreement had been signed by the Minister himself. The work of Mr. Cousins was a work of supererogation. I maintain that the Minister had no right to cancel the contract. The evidence I have from the tenant-farmers is very clear on the subject. They gave the origin of their petition to the Minister, and showed how callously that petition was received. They say their manager told them that the store was not a private one, but that Mr. Rosenberg was fighting for himself, and he advised them to kick against Mr. Rosenberg and the scheme; therefore, they sent in a petition asking for a pure Government scheme. They say that when they arrived there they had cattle for milking purposes, but Mr. Rosenberg wished to charge them £7 10s. for the calves. Then they sent a petition to the Prime Minister asking why they were so falsely treated. The Prime Minister informed them that he had sent the petition to Mr. Boydell, and that was the last they heard of it. They were told by the manager that the Government was fighting hard to buy the place for them, but now they found themselves sold to the company without any consultation on their side. That is the essence of the complaint of these men, and it is borne out by the very documents the Minister has signed. The men’s representative says—

On April 28th the Secretary for Labour attended a meeting at Doornkop and opened the proceedings by saying that he was sent by the Minister of Labour to deliver to the men a new agreement. I fully believe that we have not got a more straightforward and honest official than Mr. Cousins. My informant proceeds—

The Minister seems very bored with this. The document proceeds—

I charge the Minister with deliberately being the cause of these people losing hope. How could it be otherwise when the Minister signs away their rights to a Johannesburg adventurer? The Durban Labour paper, “Bulletin”, after giving an account of the transaction that took place on April 28th, certainly gave Mr. Rosenberg his full measure of praise. It says—

This sounds almost like the panegyric on Mr. Rosenberg that we have heard so constantly from the Minister’s lips! Mr. Cousins told the men that, as a Government official, it was not for him to advise which of the four alternatives they should accept.

I thought you said I brought pressure to bear on them to decide.

The agreement had already been concluded by the Minister was put before the tenant-farmers without any guidance. Another man says that Mr. Rosenberg received £2,000 in salary.

He never got a penny.

I know that, I am merely indicating how the tenant-farmers interpreted the agreement sent to them.

That shows how wrong they are.

In the matter of £10 per acre they are not wrong. [Time limit.]

This is my last opportunity to warn the Minister regarding his proposed compulsory labour colony in the Elgin area. Two or more years ago when the Minister’s predecessor in office disclosed that he was intending to start a labour colony there, I said the place was entitrely unsuited for it. Apparently everything is looked upon by the Government from a political aspect entirely. I was then charged with being afraid that the Government would send voters there, and that they would militate against the success of the South African party in the Caledon division.

Which vote is the hon. member discussing?

The vote for the Minister.

That came in under the Revenue Vote. It has been passed.

The Minister this morning declared on a question put by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)—

I gave the information, but it is on the other vote.

The matter was discussed this morning.

Yes, I am sorry, it should not have been discussed.

I shall bring this question up again when the Appropriation Bill is under discussion.

I should like the Minister to let us know why, when I drew attention to the condition with regard to the £10 per acre, he denied the existence of that condition at all in the House. I asked him a question in this House and he said there was nothing of that kind in the agreement at all. That seems to me to be not only in accordance with the Minister’s policy of secrecy in regard to this matter, but coming very dangerously near to being entirely misleading and incorrect. Here was a document sent to these tenant-farmers embodying a condition promising them £10 per acre, and the Minister stands in his place in the House and denies there is anything of that sort in the agreement.

They were not promised that. You know that.

I will tell the Minister what these people were promised. A letter from his own department signed by the Secretary for Labour was addressed to the people concerned in these terms—

The Department of Labour said expressly that these profits made over to the Government are held in security for the lessees.

We first deduct the money they owe us, and give them the balance. They know they have to pay back the money we have spent.

Not a single word was conveyed to these people either to qualify or explain that condition of Mr. Rosenberg. This condition was referred to as being signed by “Meneer Rosenberg” and was sent to the tenant-farmers in such a way as to lead them to suppose that it superseded all previous conditions, and there was not a word of qualification to modify it in any way. They were entitled to believe that for every cultivated acre of cane they were to receive £10. If it had been the intention of the Government to set off anything against the £10 they should have said so, and put it in the agreement that was sent. On the contrary, they sent a document which led the tenant-farmers to believe that whatever profit was disclosed was made over to the Government in trust for them. The men are under a sense of injustice which none of the explanations of the Minister will serve to dispose of. One of the tenant-farmers wrote me in these terms—

This is a reply to the Minister’s assertion that the minds of these men were poisoned against the scheme. He says—

I want the Minister to be reasonable about this matter. I want him to agree to receive a representative of these settlers. He has not been to the farm for a considerable time.

I was there a fortnight before Parliament met. I could not be there since.

The Minister then should surely have realized that the position was very serious, and did not admit of the treatment he has accorded the matter since. I hope the Minister will agree, even at this hour, to receive these men and try and do more for them than has been done. I am taking the Minister at his own avowal. When he came before us with this scheme he said that two-thirds of the value placed on the land by the Natal Land Board amounted to £33,000. That was what the Minister held out to these people as their share in the land. Their share in the mill was to be £66,000, making £99,916. That was the capital value they were to have earned after two years’ work—£1,000 each. That was what the Minister held out to them. He is unable to deny it. I can prove chapter and verse, £99,000, virtually £1,000 each, was the capital value that the Minister held out to them if they would do two years’ work.

That is not correct. If they saw the whole thing through, that would be the value, but they did not see the thing through.

The Minister was more specific on that occasion. He said how much was to be yielded by the first year’s crushing, and how much by the second year’s crushing, and Mr. Rosenberg had in his possession the estimate of one of the Minister’s experts which said that this proposition was going to yield a net profit of £7,000 per annum. Virtually £1,000 each would be the capital value of a property capable of producing £70,000 net per annum, and the Minister has offered them £150 each. The indebtedness of the tenant-farmers, by way of subsidy, etc., would be about £38,000, but, even if you take that off, the value still remains at £61,000. That is the very lowest estimate we can place on the capital value which these men had in the property. What is the result? The company gets 2,500 acres of cane ready for crushing in 1929, and the tenant-farmer, who has borne the heat and burden of the struggle— [Time limit.]

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote N, “Defence”, £25,800, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote O, “Relief of Distress, £470,000, put and agreed to.

“Defence Endowment Account”, £97,000, put and agreed to.

I move that the railway revenue estimates stand over until the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works are disposed of.

No. Why not take the railways estimates first?

Loan Vote A is the brown book. I want to give you an opportunity to discuss the brown book.

I quite understand my hon. friend, but I think it is far more seemly to discuss the ordinary expenditure first and then discuss the capital expenditure afterwards.

Motion put and agreed to.

Is not that put as an unopposed motion?

There are no unopposed motions in committee.

Estimates of Capital and Betterment Works, Railways and Harbours.

On Head 1, “Construction of Railways”, £1,278,631,

I want to refer very briefly to the report of the Railways and Harbours Board on pages 32 and 33. In connection therewith, I tabled some questions on the 15th of this month, and I wish to draw attention to the unsatisfactory condition, in particular of the contracts which were placed with a Belgian firm in June, 1925. I asked whether, when these rails were delivered, any portion was found to be defective, and the answer I received was that owing to the urgency—

What item is the hon. member discussing?

The general question of railways.

The hon. member cannot discuss the general question of railways on this vote.

Wait until we get to the revenue estimates.

I see there is £20,000 down here for Cape Town-Woltemade No. 1. I thought we voted this last year, when you got Parliament to agree to construct this line. Is this the line to go by way of Kensington?

Yes, the avoiding line.

What about the bridges? Has my hon. friend provided for the bridges which he said he would try to provide for before the work is started? You will remember there was some difficulty about the bridges.

We shall carry out our agreement.

I would like to ask about Naboomspruit-Zebedelia. I see there is an increase of £54,900. I understand that the proprietors of the Zebedelia Estate guaranteed the interest on the capital of this line. Have they also guaranteed the interest on the increased amount of £34,900?

In regard to the first question, which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) raised, as to the bridges, of course we shall carry out the undertaking which I gave last year, when the House agreed to the Construction Bill. We are providing this year £80,000 and an amount of £20,000 will remain over. The work has been started. There was some difficulty in connection with the Milnerton Estates. We are now in negotiation about that. In regard to the Naboomspruit-Zebedelia line, the recent rainy season proved that much more extensive provision has to be made for drainage, culverts, etc., and that has increased the cost of the line considerably. In regard to many of these lines that were sanctioned in the last construction programme, a preliminary survey had been made and it was impossible to make a very exact calculation of the cost. Accordingly, our experience has been that, in some cases, the estimate has been considerably exceeded. I do not think it will be possible in all cases to make a very detailed survey before the construction programme is agreed to, but under our present procedure it is, unfortunately, inevitable in many cases that the ultimate cost will be considerably exceeded.

Have the Zebedelia people agreed to pay interest on the increased cost?

They are making a contribution. They are contributing to the cost of the bridge there £2,500.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Head 2, “New Works on Open Lines”, £2,270,930,

There are some questions I want to raise on this. The first is Item 204 on page 14, Pienaar’s River; relaying with new 60 pound material. There is no heavy traffic over this. What is the reason for this relaying? Surely it is not necessary to relay this line with 60 pound rails. Then there is Item 235, Salt River: replacement of road bridge, £30,513. That is a very expensive piece of business. Then Item 236, Salt River-Simonstown, substitution of poles for level crossing gates, £3,531. What is the explanation of this? And then the next item, Salt River-Simonstown: warning bells operated by “Treadles” at 24 level crossings. Are these the only things we are going to do to remedy the unsatisfactory state of affairs in regard to level crossings? What are you going to do at Rondebosch? They ought to have something better than warning bells. Then on page 18 there is a tremendous lot of fresh signalling. On page 20 you find that £285,000 is the total cost. Perhaps the Minister will give us some information in regard to this. Then I want to deal with a rather important matter. I see in Cape Town you have an automatic telephone exchange, £10,120. Has my hon. friend come to some agreement with the head of the post office? You may put this up and then you may find they won’t connect you up. Then there is also one at Naauwpoort and another at East London, and further down, Item 365, there is an automatic exchange at Johannesburg, £2,000. Then I should like some explanation in regard to Item 406, Table Bay Harbour, facilities for storing petrol in bulk. What is the meaning of that? Is that for these big tanks in the old quarry?

I would like to ask the attention of the Minister to Item 16 on page 5, “Buffalo River: replace existing bridge by steel structure on concrete piers”, total of £114,834, of which one-third is guaranteed by local bodies; £6,000 expenditure and £19,000 to be expended in the ensuing year, leaving almost £90,000 for future finding. It seems to me to be remarkable slow progress in giving effect to the decision of this House. Perhaps the Minister could explain the slowness of this structure.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has dealt with the question of the provision we are making for the safety of the public in regard to level crossings over this line. We have now got the report of the commission which deals with the whole Union. Some very important and far-reaching recommendations are made there. The hon. member will appreciate it will be necessary for the administration very carefully to go into the question and determine its policy. One of the recommendations is that part of this expenditure should be shared by the central Government. So far I have failed to appreciate the grounds for that finding, anyway. It is a very big question.

It is riot a solution so far as this line here goes.

So far as this line is concerned, we are making provision at all places where we think it is absolutely necessary for the safety of the public, either by level crossings or signal bells, etc. Extensive provision has been made for signalling apparatus and other safety appliances on the lines. In regard to the question of the 60-pound rails, the administration has found that is necessary, and that the traffic will warrant it. The hon. member knows that is a process going on all over the country. The permanent way is (continually being strengthened and lighter rails taken out, and heavier rails put in as the traffic requirements warrant. Then, in regard to item 406, the oil tanks, here we provide for the administration’s share in the expenditure necessary to carry out the arrangements entered into with the oil companies. Then on Item 16, the provision here is for the road in connection with the new bridge over the Buffalo River. The municipality there agreed to share a portion of the cost, and we are providing here for our share.

The question is, why the slowness of the work, so much left for the future?

The undertaking was that the work had to be commenced within a year. We are now carrying out our part of the terms.

What is all this signal interlocking ?—Are you starting a new programme?

As the hon. member knows, we have already completed a good deal of that, and we are proceeding with it. They are appliances in connection with the safety of the working of trains, and we are continually increasing them.

I am afraid I have not made myself clear. The question is why is such a large amount, £90,000, left over for the future? I am well aware with regard to the allocation of the cost of this bridge, but why the slowness of the work?

The materials must he ordered from England in connection with bridge work, and plans must be got out. We cannot do all the bridge work over the country all at once. We have a vast programme.

I would like to ask how the work is progressing with regard to the Johannesburg railway station, and when it is contemplated that it will be completed. There is a great deal of inconvenience—necessarily so —and it would be a relief to the public to know when the station will be completed.

As to automatic telephones, we are merely connecting up in our exchanges. It has nothing to do with the post office policy. It is in connection with our own local exchanges. With regard to the Johannesburg station, the hon. member probably knows that satisfactory progress is being made in connection with the work, which will be completed after a period of three years— that is before it is finally completed. Two hundred civilized labourers are working on the scheme.

With regard to the telephone exchanges, does the Minister mean that there are two systems on the railways? The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs says he refused to connect any internal automatic system with his manual system; are these automatic systems in the department connected with the manual System outside?

There is a trunk line. The automatic system is merely in the local exchange.

The two are connected up?

Yes, that is so.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to item 124 on page 10. There is an estimate for relaying the Sea Point line with 80 lb. rails. Is the Minister contemplating throwing good money after bad? Here is this line on which we are losing £120 a day, and the position is bound to become worse, because parallel with it is a magnificent road, and a few hundred yards away there are tram lines. Private enterprize is meeting the traffic there to such an extent that this railway is running at a loss, and if it continues it will be worse. Why should the State bear a loss of this nature? Surely there is an obligation on the municipalities to cater for their suburban traffic. I think this line ought to be scrapped. If the corporation does not step in, private enterprize would. The situation of this line is so inconvenient that it has no hope of paying. Monument Station is out of the way, whereas motor ’buses and trams go to the centre of the city. I move—

On the 18th of this month the Minister gave certain replies to a series of questions I put with regard to the Monument-Sea Point line. [Reply read.] When will this trial be, for which the administration is waiting? Let us assume that the suburban electrification scheme will be in operation in August, then a further loss will be incurred on the Sea Point line of £44,530. I have given the matter very serious consideration, and I agree fully with what the hon. member behind me (Mr. Deane) has said. The line is an eye-sore; the black posts are like gibbets and gallows; the line largely cuts off access to the beach, and another very serious objection is that it holds up traffic. There are innumerable gates, and vehicles are kept standing for quite a time. With the increased number of trains, this holding up of traffic is naturally accentuated. Of course the paramount objection is the shameful waste of public funds. This is now to be continued, the line never can and never will pay. The people who use the line could very well be served by mechanical motor traction. The rights of the Sea Point people could be safeguarded by the Government coming to an agreement with the tramway company as to fares in the event of the line being scrapped, as it will eventually have to be. I see no redeeming feature in this matter. It means that the State is subsidizing a railway line for the transportation of the citizens of the local authority and which is really the business of the local authority. A business man would scrap this proposition to-morrow. If the tramway company charges too high fares it will get opposition. We should import into the business of the State some of the considerations which guide us in the management of our private affairs.

I am surprised to hear hon. members from other parts of the country say they are so very much concerned about the Sea Point railway. If we had regular statistics about the branch lines we should see that the Sea Point line was not the only one which is a burden on the State. What about the Pretoria-Rustenburg, the Maritzburg-Franklin and the Ennersdale lines? The hon. members do not mind what public money is being spent in the Transvaal, but you must treat all parts of the country alike. If they had gone into the history of the line they would have found that the people of Sea Point had borne the full burden.

But they have never paid.

They have paid for years. The Sea Point people kept to their contract with the Government,

The Cape Government.

Surely you are not going to escape your responsibility on the ground that the contract was entered into with the previous Government? The Sea Point people have the right to resent the way in which this line is being singled out for criticism, although if the Minister can show us there is good reason for closing down the railway the local people will not object. The Minister has explained that if the line were shut down an extra burden would be cast on the suburban line. After that declaration there can be no reason from the public point of view for further attacks on the Sea Point line. I, with others, have been negotiating for a long time with the tramway company and municipality in regard to this line. I am not going to consent to the closing of the line unless very good cause for so doing is shown, and unless the public are given something in place of it.

I hope we shall not have a long discussion over this matter. On a previous occasion my colleague stated that the matter would be very fully inquired into. Hon. members should remember what the conditions were when the line was originally built and the previous Government decided to electrify it. It is only during the last year or so that a new state of affairs has arisen altering the conditions of transportation to Sea Point very considerably. That being so, it is unreasonable to expect that I should at this moment inform the House that Government has decided to close the line. Obviously the matter will have to be considered very carefully. In the meantime we are asking Parliament to sanction this expenditure for heavier rails in case it is decided to continue running the line. In the latter event it would be absolutely necessary for the safety of the travelling public to replace the 60-pound rails by 80-pound rails.

But if you don’t decide to carry it on?

We are responsible for the safety of the travelling public. When we know that a particular line is not very safe, it is necessary to take all precautions and strengthen the track if necessary. I am advised that if the line is not closed it will be absolutely essential to strengthen the track. We are putting in heavier rails on the curves.

We remember when the Opposition were in power how the public shouted when the railway ran buses from Sea Point to Bakoven. They asked why the railways were competing with the private buses. We knew that the Sea Point line would never pay, and it is one of the legacies, one of those curses with which we have been saddled by the other side. Now hon. members opposite say that the line must be scrapped. The people in the country districts are not satisfied that £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 should be paid for lines which will pay less, but as stated, is one of the curses left by the previous Government. That is why the hon. members are to-day sitting over there. The country might have had many railways for the money that was wrongly spent there. We need more railways in the interior. Could not the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) see so far forward as to know that the buses would revolutionize the traffic? It is always said that he was such a good Minister of Railways but if he could not forsee that, he was a bad Minister. He spent millions which have brought us nothing but loss.

I do not propose to discuss the Sea Point line. It seems to me that the position as outlined by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and confirmed by the Minister, is by far the most satisfactory way of dealing with the case. I would like to refer to the question of the new line from the main Cape Town station to Woltemade No. 1. The hon. the Minister will recollect that when this matter came up for discussion very late in the last session, we understood an agreement had been arrived at between the town council and the railway authorities, satisfactory to both bodies, and the item was passed. Now I understand that the railway administration have not quite recognized the Minister’s undertaking in the matter—that there has been some misunderstanding as to the terms of that agreement.

My statement in the House was very explicit.

I think the Minister’s statement was very explicit, and I would urge him, now that he is temporarily in charge of the railways, to make it quite clear to the railway administration that the statement was explicit. I feel that the railways are going very far in doing away with the Paarden Island road. It is going to be a very important road in the future, and we are very short of road exits from Cape Town. That will be one of the main road exits from Cape Town and will take traffic off the present main road, which is very congested. I would ask the Minister whether the administration could consider keeping that road open and negotiate with the municipality, if necessary, as regards the bridge. It is going to be a very disastrous thing for Cape Town if that road is entirely closed to motor traffic. It will throw all the motor traffic over to the Salt River bridge and that is a very congested and dangerous point. With regard to the substitution of poles for gates at level crossings, I look upon these poles as absolute death traps. If one is motoring, especially in bad weather, and the bell is not easily heard, the pole comes down on the top of a car before you know where you are. Personally, I have seen even pedestrians very nearly guillotined by these descending poles. I feel that the gate was bad enough, but the pole is infinitely worse, and pending a decision as to what we are going to do with regard to the level crossings—whether we are going to bridge them or not—I think it is rather a pity to go on extending the use of this pole closing, as it is dangerous and only leads to very serious accidents.

If an alteration of the rails is necessary on the Sea Point line for public safety, I have nothing to say, because that is the paramount consideration. But I must say I was rather amused at the super-sensitiveness of and heat displayed by my hon. friend the member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). I have seen no justification in what the Minister or anybody else has said, for the continued running of this line. My constituents and other users of the railways have to pay this daily loss of £122 to subsidize a railway that is for transportation within the area of a local authority. My hon. friend talks about non-paying lines, but I know of no other of a similar character to this.

In reply to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), I do not know of any difficulties that have arisen in regard to the undertaking which I gave in the House with regard to these bridges when the Construction Bill was before the House last year. The administration will have to honour the undertaking which I gave at the time. We do not want to get out of that. I think it admits of no misunderstanding. As for the Paarden Island road, we are negotiating with the town council in connection with its deviation. It is necessary that some change be made there in connection with the construction of the line. I understand the idea is to deviate the road. With regard to level crossings, at present the arrangement is to have gates turned by hand, with consequent delays to traffic, and, especially in view of the electrification of the line, we want to substitute the poles. They will be very much safer and there will not be the same delay that is occasioned by the present arrangement of gates at various places.

Under Votes 489-495 I see that amounts are provided for improvements of the water supply on the portion of the line from De Aar to South-West Africa. I notice that the votes were practically all voted last year, and I only want to ask whether the Minister will give his attention to the matter of expediting the work. He knows that during the great drought tremendous difficulties were experienced in connection with the transport of cattle, but, although the money was voted, the improvements have not yet been effected. I should also like to know whether the amounts are adequate. I see, e.g., only one provision between De Aar and Prieska.

I only want to say that a globular sum is here being voted, and I understand that the works are already in hand, and it is hoped to complete them this yaer, and in 1929. Of course, we find that improvements are necessary throughout the country and amounts are made available from time to time. We are trying to expedite the work, but cannot of course do everything at once.

Amendment put and negatived.

Head, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Head 3, “Rolling Stock”, £1,624,876.

I think this is a suitable oportunity for referring to the question which I put to the Minister on the 15th May concerning certain defective Belgian rails. It appears on page 33 of the Railway Board’s report. I would like to refer to one or two of the answers which I received, namely, as to whether these rails or any portion of them had been examined when delivered, or whether any portion of them had been laid down by the administration without such examination, and the answer was—

I am discussing the general question embodied in this vote, rolling stock.

The hon. member cannot do that.

Under the Revenue Estimates, on the vote for the Minister’s salary, the hon. member (Mr. Nathan) can discuss policy.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 4, “Harbours”, £630,305.

I see an item here, No. 705, Durban harbour, widening and deepening of harbour entrance channel, £60,000. Perhaps the Minister will explain that item.

May I now put my question on Item 708, Durban harbour, extension of south breakwater, by 300 feet? I would like to know how many feet have been completed, and whether that work has revealed any adverse depth. It was understood when this was sanctioned that a very careful study would be made of the effect of the extension of this breakwater, and from time to time observations would be taken to see whether the extension interfered with the depth at the entrance to the harbour. I would like a statement on that, because it would satisfy the people of Durban that the matter is being carefully watched.

In reply to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), the item he refers to is to provide for the deepening of the harbour by 36 feet and widening it by 500 feet. That is to enable the larger steamers to come in and avail themselves of the graving dock at Durban. As far as the question of the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Lennox) is concerned, I understand that the work is not sufficiently advanced yet to make a decision on the matter. The crane is on the spot and many of the cement blocks are in readiness to go on with the work.

There is no extension so far?

No.

I should like to know why the draining of 72 acres in the Durban harbour is being effected?

To store oil.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 6, “Airship Mooring Masts”, £70,100,

With regard to Item 726, I would like to ask the Minister where this mooring mast is going to be erected.

We have had investigations made, and the general opinion seems to be that we should locate the mast at Durban. Cape Town was also investigated, but it was thought that Durban will probably be the more suitable place. We are now in communication again with the British Air Ministry. It will be remembered that at the Imperial Conference the Prime Minister and I undertook to provide for an amount of £70,000 for this mast. Unfortunately the estimates we have received now are considerably in excess of that amount. The various other items have now been put in, and there is some doubt whether they are absolutely necessary. We are now communicating with the Air Ministry to inform them that we are quite prepared to carry out the undertaking we gave, but we never bargained for the figure they are now mentioning. Probably as the outcome of these negotiations we will be able to decide what we are going to do. It is probable it will be situate at Durban.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 7, “Working Capital”, £225,158,

I see down here for road motor services, purchase of vehicles and equipment, £175,000. Is my hon. friend going tosend motor vehicles all over the place? It is a terrific lot of expense.

This is one of the services which is extending very rapidly, and I know my hon. friend is very much in favour of the development of the work we are doing here. On the 1st April, 1928, we had in operation road motor services with a total road mileage of 7,358 miles, so the hon. member will see it has grown into a very big thing. We have applications from all over the country for increased provision. As I informed my hon. friend some time ago, the policy of the administration is to provide these services only in such cases where it is absolutely necessary for the development of the country. We do not want to compete with private enterprise, where it is adequately and satisfactorily serving the public. Only where it appears that such a service can be operated satisfactorily do we accede to the request.

What does a vehicle cost you?

About £2,000. Of course, there is the necessary accommodation to be provided.

I think the department should be congratulated on the character of their motors. They are really not flimsy things; they are made by good manufacturers and they seem to be able to get over every class of road in the country. I made representations to the late general manager that in the Eastern Province there are a considerble number of natives travelling on these motor vehicles. The European passengers sit in front, but in the majority of cases, the unfortunate natives have to sit on the luggage at the back. It is not so much for the male native that I am pleading. The late general manager was very sympathetic in saying something should be done to provide seats for the native people in the back portion of the lorries. I can tell my hon. friend that many very respectable natives have brought to my notice the fact that it is rather cruel that their women-folk should have to travel very often for miles in an uncomfortable position of this kind, which is certainly most injurious to their health. I then gathered from the general manager that the matter would be gone into. I would be very glad if the Minister would bring the matter to the notice of the department, because I understand that at very little cost, as well as carrying the luggage, seating accommodation could be provided for these unfortunate people in a way which the fare they pay justifies. Hundreds of natives utilize the motor services in this part of the country, and assist very materially in making it a profitable undertaking.

I will make inquiries about it and see what can be done. Of course the hon. member will appreciate that there are all these difficulties when we have to deal with mixed traffic, but we are doing our best, as we do on the trains, to meet the position.

There is no question of difficulty as to mixed traffic. In the front of the lorries there are enclosed seats where the Europeans sit, and at the back of the motor they carry cream and butter and things of that sort. The only place where natives can sit is on the luggage, and my suggestion is that seats should be placed round there.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 8, “Unforseen Works”, £250,000,

I see under item 12 my hon. friend has sanctioned £6,966 for provision of the club house, etc., at the sports ground, Durban. Is the railway department paying for that, or does the sports club at Durban pay for it? Then on page 44, item 110, there is Walvis Bay, purchase of dredging plant, £20,000. What is the reason for buying the plant there? Are you going to maintain the plant, and is it necessary?

That was bought from the contractors on completion of the work. Naturally we would not have bought it had we not thought it was necessary. We made a very good bargain there. We got it very cheaply. In regard to the new club, it was a grant which we formerly made, and that is insufficient and we are supplementing it here. It is a grant to the Durban railway institute committee.

Is this a railway institution, or is it a Durban club? It does seem very strange, a wealthy place like Durban.

It is the railway sports committee. I understand this was a grant which was made to them. The original grant was insufficient and we are here supplementing the grant.

On unforeseen works, I would ask the Minister whether he would consider the question of a floating crane for Table Bay docks.

There is no item.

This is for unforeseen works. My point is that the railway administration have not foreseen this necessary work.

No, that won’t do. The Railway Estimates will come on just now, when the hon. member may bring up his point.

Head put and agreed to.

Loan Estimates.

The Committee reverted to Loan Vote A, “Railways and Harbours”, £5,500,000.

It is rather difficult to understand; as I understand, it is a transfer of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to that of the Railways and Harbours. Perhaps the Minister will give an explanation what it is all about.

We have just now sanctioned the brown book, which contains the details of the proposed capital expenditure for the financial year. The money is provided by the Treasury and we have to vote it in the ordinary Treasury estimates. We transfer it to the Railways and Harbours Fund.

Vote put and agreed to.

Railways and Harbours Estimates.

On Head 1, “General Charges”, £396,526.

I move—

in order to discuss the policy of the Administration in refusing to appoint an independent commission of inquiry into the causes of the many accidents during recent years. I move this so as to discuss a matter which bas gravely exercised the mind of the public and is gravely exercising them at the present time. It is rather unfortunate that the Minister of Railways and Harbours is not here, but of course, the business of the country cannot be held up pending his return. The sound administration of our railways is not a party matter; it is a national matter and I trust the Minister will accept our suggestion and our criticisms in that spirit. Since the last serious accident the very strong feeling of the public has been somewhat abated, and one can now consider the question calmly, and I hope hon. members will do so. I feel sure the Government will give serious consideration to our request, and I am the more convinced of this knowing the great store the Prime Minister sets on human life. If for the loss of one single hon. member he is prepared to move a capital, I think for the loss of many lives he would be prepared and anxious to agree to the most searching inquiry into the administration of a department of State. We have from time to time urged that there is something redically wrong with our railways, and that an investigation, other, of course, than departmental or such as we have had after the last two accidents, should be made into the whole administration of our railways. Accidents are becoming very common, and far too common as a matter of fact, and the public slowly, but very surely, has become scared. I think it should not be forgotten that while we hear of the more serious accidents, the everyday accidents are not always reported. There is something radically wrong, and it is perfectly useless to wait for a serious accident before instituting an inquiry, and in any case, the inquiry that is usually instituted is very little more than an inquest leading nowhere. Let me here say that I keenly regret the scenes of levity that took place at the last inquiry—into the Hex River disaster. Those scenes must have harrowed the feelings of all who suffered in that accident as well as those who fortunately escaped suffering there, and all those who awaited with great anxiety news of what had become of their relatives. I say, it must have harrowed the feelings of these people to read how almost degenerate and irresponsible men can become when considering very serious matters, and I think it is time this House this House protested against those scenes which were reported.

What scenes?

The scenes in the court. I will give you one example, a poor ganger who did his duty endeavoured to explain his instructions with regard to Tennessee rails, one of those who sat in judgment wanted to know where Tennessee was, and when the ganger was unable to reply the Court “rocked with laughter.”

Is that not a matter that pertains to the department of the Minister of Justice?

I am trying to criticize the form of inquiry so as to get the Minister to hold an independent inquiry, and incidentally I am mentioning that there were men sitting on this inquiry who were so irresponsible as to joke while others suffered. The public will not be satisfied with such an inquiry. A policy has been developed of giving us members of Parliament and the public as little information as possible. Innumerable minor accidents have occurred, and from the reports it appears that there were no fewer than 598 during 1927. This must necessarily point to some serious defect somewhere, and with the accumulation of these accidents the causes surely could and should be ascertainable and be made avoidable, but if we persist in taking each accident as a whole apart, we can never know the true state of affairs. No matter how good the officials of the department may be—and I do not think a single hon. member will question the fact that in our railway administration we have excellent officials—they can never wholly free themselves from some little bias when enquiring into matters, more particularly when those matters concern their own department. It is time some strong action was taken, and only after the most searching inquiry, not only into the cause of one accident, but into the whole of the administration of this great machine of ours, will the people regain the confidence they held until quite lately, and the pride they felt in the management and running of our railways. The trust of the people in the railways appears to be a thing of the past, and that trust can only be restored if the administration would agree to an independent and searching inquiry into the whole of the administration. We are paying £30,000,000 a year, and we have a right to know, and even to demand, that we have value for our money or know the reason why. Unrest and uncertainty are growing in the minds of the public and of the railway employees. The feeling of trust should be restored at the earliest possible date. It will be said that we have had serious accidents in the past, but never, in the whole history of our railway, have there been so many serious accidents as just lately. The number has been rising steadily, which makes matters far more intolerable. Serious accidents with death resulting occurred in 1911, 1914, 1918, 1919 and 1920, but since 1924 the position has become alarming. In 1924 four persons were killed and seven injured in a railway accident in Graaff-Reinet, and two were killed at Glencoe; four men killed and 18 injured on another part of the Natal line; in 1925, eight killed near Colenso; in 1926, 16 killed and 29 injured at Salt River; one killed at Groot Brakrivier; in 1927, 15 injured at Naauwpoort; 31 killed at Mapleton, two injured at Spijtfontein, and one killed at Highlands, and in 1928, of which only five months have so far run—we had eight persons killed and 26 injured at Fishhoek, one killed at Schroeders, two killed at Waku and eight killed and 14 injured at Hex River. This list makes the public think very seriously. I am not going to suggest that there is any reason due to maladministration for these accidents, but with this growing number of accidents, it is only fair to the public and the administration that the most searching inquiry should be held so as to restore confidence. We have commissions appointed now, but they are not of the kind with which the public is satisfied. They are restricted in their investigations and are carried on very much like inquests and each issue is obscured by examination and cross-examination, more particularly when we find the railway administration sending an attorney from Pretoria to cross-examine every witness. I do not suggest that that is wrong, but it destroys the confidence of the public in the finding of the commission. Present inquiries do not go far enough and do not get to the root of the evil. An entirely independent commission should be appointed with a free hand. Let us contrast our methods with those of other countries. In 1927 a serious derailment occurred at Sevenoaks in England. The Board of Trade, independent of the railway company, appointed Col. Sir John Pringle to investigate the matter. He did not content himself merely with taking evidence from passengers and railway officials, but he made personal investigations and engaged experts to assist him. He reported on the weight and class of the particular engine concerned, and each coaching vehicle and date of construction; the total weight and the length of the train; the fittings, the efficiency of the brakes, the condition of the track, with angles, curves, etc.; the condition of the track a great distance before the point of derailment; the weight of the rails on laying and after the accident; the difference in weight between the inner and the outer rails; condition of the check rails; number of sleepers to each rail, with measurements and weight, and also the condition of the ballasting, both top and bottom. I give these details to prove he obtained evidence of the minutest detail and made exhaustive experiments and then, notwithstanding the evidence S of every railway official to the contrary, he found that the ballasting was inferior in rigidity and holding capacity, that the permanent-way staff had failed to keep up the super-elevation prescribed by the engineers, that the road had not a sufficiently firm foundation to carry heavy loads travelling at high speeds, and that the condition of the road in respect of foundation and maintenance was the initial cause of the rolling motion set up in the engine, which ultimately caused the derailment. Only by an independent investigation, such as that suggested, can we find the real cause of these accidents. The Minister need not be afraid of the outcome of an independent investigation, for I am perfectly certain that the administration is not so bad as many people think, but a thorough investigation may assist the Government and may show that the officials have not done so badly as some people imagine. After the inquiries that are now held, we know no more than we did before. An accident happens and we find a paragraph in the newspapers, stating that the train was travelling too fast. In 90 per cent. of cases that is the finding. That there is something radically wrong in this state of affairs no one can question. The Acting Minister, very unfortunately, is always intolerant when anyone criticizes him or his administration. He blames the press for drawing attention to these many accidents, which obviously should be drawn attention to. He speaks rather contemptuously of their “methods” and of the “reported” accidents, and he claims that the reports are rousing public feelings. Surely it is not the reports, but the accidents which are rousing public feeling. If the Minister does not appreciate this, he must he singularly out of touch with his public. If the press is making much of these mishaps, surely it is not starting too early. Surely it is only following what the public is saying. The public has demanded, for some time past, that there should be a very close enquiry into all these matters, that there should be less official secrecy and more consideration for the users of the railway, and for those servants of the administration who daily risk their lives. It is to my mind far more reprehensible to endeavour to minimize the seriousness of a continued set of circumstances which leads to accidents, than to draw attention to them. Evidence is accumulating very fast, and I would remind the Minister of what some of his own officials say. These officials, at a meeting at Salt River, and supported by officials at a meeting in Johannesburg, made very strong comments. This is what they say. One man asks—

I am not deciding whether these men know anything of the matter or not, but I ask the Government to appoint someone to tell us—

Again, I say I am not concerned whether that is right or wrong. Let us have the fullest enquiry, and be told by some independent man or body of men whether that is right or wrong—

Here is another point that ought to be gone into carefully, because the men claim that the transportation system is wrong—

If the bonus and transportation systems are wrong, let us alter them. Let us not hide these matters. Let us change the systems, and the public will be with the Government that is prepared to face such an enquiry and make such changes as are necessary—

It will be remembered that at this Fish Hoek enquiry there was no decision in regard to the track, but here is what an engine driver says—

At none of these enquiries that we have had have these points been gone into—

The statements by these engine drivers are all very emphatic, and if it is claimed that they have never spoken before, it must be admitted that they are men who are not able to speak out except on occasions such as these, when they have a meeting of their trade union or whatever it might be. They are the men who work the trains. They are in a position to judge and it must not be forgotten also that they are always in a position of danger. I feel that they are right in saying that they should not be exposed to unnecessary risk in following their calling, which always exposes them to risk. I think everybody in this country will admit that a finer body of men than our engine drivers cannot be found anywhere, and I feel that when these splendid men come forward with such serious complaints and such very serious and far-reaching statements, that is sufficient evidence of the acute feeling amongst them, and when you get the employees feeling as these men do, and speaking as they do, you feel, no matter how honest they are about doing their work to the best of their ability, there is always something which prevents them from doing their work with such a finish as they would if they were a satisfied body of men. What they said there would surely go far to prove that there are causes for these very serious accidents which cannot be ascertained by an ordinary inquiry such as we usually have, and we have the right to expect the Government neither to minimize the seriousness of the accidents nor to refuse to institute the most searching inquiry. We find from another body of railwaymen a very serious complaint. A paper of the railwaymen says—

We have had several complaints against the transportation system. Surely this, with the other points of complaint, is a matter which should receive very careful consideration. The public, we know, have become very much upset by what has happened, and, like the railwaymen, they feel that there should be the closest inquiry. May I say here that there can be no lack of confidence in the higher officials by the demand that we should have an inquiry, where they themselves are not represented, except in the ordinary way as witnesses. Personally, I should imagine that the higher officials would welcome an inquiry as undoubtedly one of their main objects is to protect the travelling public, and, though it may be a secondary object, another is to see that their trains are run with the highest efficiency. The public have over and over again demanded such an inquiry. It certainly is in the interests of the staff that there should be such an inquiry, and it cannot be doubted that it is in the interests of the administration to know exactly how to remedy every defect, and bring this great system of ours, one which we have always been proud of, to the highest possible efficiency. I do trust the Minister is going to treat this matter as one which is, I will not say demanded, but appealed for by the travelling public and by the servants of the railway and will put aside all other questions than the one that we should have the closest investigation, and if possible a remedy, for all that may at the present time be wrong.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) raised a very important question here this afternoon, namely, the safety of the travelling public in South Africa. It is a matter which not only hon. members in the House feel very much, but ought also to receive our serious attention in fairness to the public, and especially the travelling public. I, therefore, think there is not one member in the House who objects to the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) raising the matter here. Not only are we proud of our railways, but travellers in other parts of the country, and visitors from abroad praise our railways very highly, and we are not only grateful, but proud as well. When, however, we examine and consider the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) we must go a little further into the cause of the hon. member’s request for the enquiry. He has already, on former occasions, brought up this matter here in a different way. I want to say again that I have no objections to the hon. member calling the attention of the House to it, also that we cannot suspect him of ulterior motives, but then we can also expect from the other side that they will excuse us if we regard the matter from a different point of view, a matter which raises a little suspicion among us. I want to say in starting, that when I express different views from those of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), I do not wish it to be understood that I, or we on this side of the House are less concerned about the accidents or the good name of our railways, or that we expect less from the officials, or the Minister or the Railway Board. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) at the commencement of his speech, used a number of expressions which, in my opinion, do not appear quite fair, and which will not assist in removing the question into the calm, cool consideration which we might expect from the Minister and the department, and this House. The expressions were “an extraordinary number of accidents,” “a very grave question,” “the public is scared,” “something radically wrong,” etc. Those are expressions that were used not only by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), but also by other persons, and elsewhere. I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that these expressions must be considered from the actual perspective, and then we shall see that the position is not only so to-day, but that in the past such conditions also prevailed. Before I go further, I think that where the hon. member spoke with a certain contempt about the commissions and the courts which have enquired into the railway accidents, and which were appointed by the Department of Justice, it is not fair towards the courts. I think that the statement that the enquiry is no more than a judicial enquiry into the death is a serious complaint against the officials. I do not want to go into that, but high officials were appointed to make the enquiry. In connection with the enquiry into the most recent accident which we all have in painful remembrance, a high official from outside the Union, a magistrate, and an official of the department were appointed. I think that if we discuss the matter seriously, we must give the officials the credit of knowing what they are doing when they institute an enquiry, and that they are beyond suspicion. I do not think it assists the hon. member’s own case if at the start he expresses distrust of the officials who are making the enquiry. If the courts were to be appointed by the Department of Railways, then there might possibly be reason for the distrust of the hon. member, but when the courts are appointed by another department which has nothing to do with railways, then there is no reason for it. I do not wish to repeat, but I feel that as we to-day have this motion before us, we, to a certain extent, come to the extreme development with reference to what has taken place during past years. It is the extreme which has arisen from a certain agitation to stir up the suspicion of the public against the railways. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) will excuse me for saying this, but I am expressing my convictions. The first agitation began after the terrible catastrophe at Salt River. Then propaganda was commenced against the railways with the result that the Minister of Railways was forced to make a public statement to contradict the groundless statements in the press. The object of the agitation was to create suspicion, not only in the House, but also in the country against the white labour policy of the Government. It was not directly said that that policy was directly responsible for the accidents, but it was put in such a way that the Minister and the previous general-manager of Railways against whom hon. members have nothing—had to nail those lies to the mast. It did not stop at that. In spite of the fact that the Minister had nailed the lies to the mast, it was used in a by-election by certain agents to represent the civilized labour policy of the Government as responsible for the accidents. Hon. members know which by-election it was. I saw that when we have those data we feel compelled to look for more behind the motion of the hon. member than mere interest in the welfare of the railways. It has not stopped at hon. members, but recently a renewed agitation commenced in the press, so that the Minister was again obliged to warn the public not to be stirred up by the agitation. Every Friday and Tuesday hon. members opposite, especially in the left-hand corner, have taken their opportunity to put a whole series of questions to draw the attention of the people to the matter. I say that these things must create the impression among us that there is an ulterior motive. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) in his Budget speech, himself laid so much emphasis on the permanent way, that the inference therefrom by the people and the House must be that he wants to imply that it is possible that the condition of the permanent way may be the reason for the accidents. When we have said these things, we come to the comparison of the previous position in comparison with the last few years, and I take my data from the Year Book for 1924-’25 (No. 8), page 715, in which I find the total number of accidents for a number of years. I want to repeat that we do not rejoice because there were also large numbers in other years, but only want to compare the approximate condition in comparison with former years. The number of persons killed or injured on the railways was, in 1919-’20, 113 killed, 114 injured (this included accidents at crossings, etc.); in 1920-’21, killed 97, injured 163; in 1921-’22, killed 102, injured 102; in 1922-’23, killed 95, injured 77; in 1923-’24, killed 112, injured 153. Then we find the figures for subsequent years on page 70 of the general-manager’s report. He regrets to record that a number of people have been injured in railway accidents, and gives the figures, which show that they were considerably less than in the years mentioned. It is not my intention to draw attention to the painful aspect of the matter, but we only wish to have a view of the whole position. [Time limit.]

I do not want the votes to pass without making one or two remarks on what the hon. member for Cape Town (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has said. No true South African will fail to deplore the accidents that have occurred, but I want to point out how the newspapers exaggerate in this respect. They write as if they had never before heard of railway accidents, and frighten the public as much as they can. I only want to speak of my personal experience. That is the reason I am taking part in the debate. On the 5th May I was travelling from Cape Town to Pretoria, and when we arrived at Johannesburg, how great was our astonishment to read in the “Star” in thick black letters, that we had been in a railway accident. On the front page Of the newspaper there were the Words in big lettering: “Mishap to Express”; “Engine runs off leaving coaches”; “Guard of van stops goods coach following”. It must have made a tremendous impression on the public, but for the mistake, and the exaggeration I do not want to blame the newspaper so much as the person who reported it. At the bottom of the report it said: “News by C. J. L. Taljaard.” They do not add that Mr. Taljaard is the organising secretary of the S.A.P. If they had added that one would know what value to attach to the report. But what did actually happen? In the ordinary course while the steward was serving us with coffee the train came to a standstill. We thought that it was an ordinary stop, except the steward, who saw what had occurred and said: “There goes the locomotive.” The engine went on a few hundred yards and then returned. The bolt had fallen out of the coupling between the engine and the train, by the motion of the train. The same bolt was used to make the coupling again, and the train continued its journey. It was much less than a leak in a motor tyre. But that was the nonsense that was published, and a report by the organising secretary of the S.A.P. is published: “Passengers were relieved to hear that nobody was hurt,” so the report stated. Unless anyone intentionally injured himself no one could have been hurt. Unfortunately that sort of news contribution is the cause of the travelling public being afraid, and it is deeply to be deplored, when such stupid reports of irresponsible people make the public uneasy. If such reports appear when nothing has happened, then one wonders what they will print when there is an actual accident. Col. Mentz, the previous Minister of Defence, was also on the train and he came to me and said, “Naudé, I hear we were in an accident.” No one knew anything about it till we read it in Johannesburg.

It is quite clear the men themselves feel that some sort of inquiry ought to be held to find out what is wrong. The public is getting alarmed. I would like to ask if the Minister’s attention has been drawn to the resolutions passed by railwaymen at a meeting held in Cape Town on April 22nd. They passed a resolution with regard to cuts in pay, hours and privileges made in 1923. There again they respectfully submit that the time has arrived when the Government should reconsider the restoration in those cuts that were then made. Another grievance is in regard to the long service increment which does not apply to those servants who have joined since 1910. They point out that having two sets of men together, doing the same work, some of whom are entitled to the long service increment and others not entitled to it, causes a good deal of dissatisfaction. They complain of the long delay before the trial for an accident takes place, and during which a man is suspended. In some cases a delay of six months has taken place before a man knows exactly what is going to become of his case. It may not be the fault of the Railway Department. It may be that the delays occur in the ordinary administration of justice.

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

When the House suspended business I was beginning to draw the Minister’s attention to certain resolutions passed at a meeting of Nurahs, with the idea of calling the Minister’s notice to them and asking him to give them consideration. The first dealt With the Hours of Duty Committee appointed in 1925 and urged the Government to put their recommendations into operation. The second asked for restoration of the cuts made in 1923, the third for revision of the long service increment regulations and the fourth drew attention to the long delay in trials arising out of accidents, with the consequence of unfairness to the men whose pay is suspended during that time. The fifth deals with what they think the Minister ought to give his consideration to as one of the chief causes of the accidents that take place. They point out that the regulations which say that a guard may proceed to the next station even if he does not receive a warning order are not actually carried out and that this was one of the contributory causes of the Mapleton disaster. Guards may stop their trains if the warning order is not given to them and the result may be that owing to the stoppage of the train, which is unexpected, a disaster may occur. They say, as railwaymen, that this was one of the contributory causes of the Mapleton disaster. The meeting also expressed the opinion that the extraordinary number of running derailments is due to defects in permanent way or rolling stock. I think that needs very careful enquiry on the part of the Government. Another point they want the Minister to go into is the question of the cost of living allowances. They point out that the cost of living at some of the coastal towns is higher than in the inland towns, where the allowance is given. They say that the allowance should be given to both coastal and inland towns alike or that the department should pool all the allowances and distribute them equitably. They also ask the Minister whether it is not possible to allow the deduction of union subscriptions from departmental pay sheets. A further request which they make is for a special Workmen’s Compensation Act for men on the railways. The Minister may say there is the ordinary Workmen’s Compensation Act, but the men say that the circumstances of working on the railways are such that the ordinary workmen’s compensation Act is not suited to the requirements of railwaymen and they hope the Government will consider the introduction of a special workmen’s compensation Act dealing particularly with men on the railways. The last point they want me to direct the Minister’s attention to is the operation of the Railway Conciliation Board under the Act of 1925. They contend the Government does not allow sufficient use to be made of the conciliation machinery. Seeing that the Railway Conciliation Board, as its name implies, is purely a conciliation board to try and arrive at agreement, I do not see why the Government should limit the trial of cases brought before that board. After all, the Minister, as head of the Railway Board, may carry out or not carry out the recommendation of the Board, but I think every possible use should be made of this machinery, because the use of the conciliation board should certainly do away with the great deal of discontent. I realize it may not be possible for the Minister to give me a full reply on all these matters, but I hope he has taken a note of them and that he will in his leisure during the recess go into the various matters covered by the points I have raised.

As I understood the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) I gather that accidents do not happen, but are manufactured in newspaper offices.

I did not say all.

I referred to one particular accident.

We are quite accustomed to that style of argument, but it does no harm to draw attention to it again. Perhaps you will find it your duty in future, Mr. Chairman, to check some hon. members for tedious repetition of these futilities.

What would happen to poor Marwick if that rule were applied?

The hon. member has more intelligence than his interruption would seem to indicate. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the serious disappointment caused by the failure of the administration to provide a turning basin at East London. If hon. members would only realize that it is not a matter affecting East London alone, but one affecting the whole of the Union, they would view it with more sympathetic eyes. This little harbour is capable, at a minimum of cost, of being developed still further to meet all reasonable requirements. It so happens that the river bed at the entrance to the harbour is composed of very soft material so that there need not be any great trouble or expense in doing this work to enable any ocean-going ship to visit East London. I would also direct attention to the growing importance of the fruit trade, more especially the citrus industry, which will shortly attain very large dimensions in this country. Would you believe it, that fruit is now being sent from Fort Beaufort and places in that vicinity all the way to Cape Town, a distance of 800 miles, whereas East London is less than 100 miles distant from the same point? In the arrangement of favourable railway rates to Cape Town I find the freight is only 25s. a ton for the 800 miles, whereas for the 100 miles to East London, it is 18s. a ton. But apart from that, it is obvious there would be an immense saving in rolling stock if the bulk of this fruit were diverted to its natural port, East London. When the turning basin is provided, there is no question that the mail steamers will be able to take fruit not only from Fort Beaufort, but from other points much further distant, with greater economy and with greater, advantage to the industry. It cannot be too strongly emphasized what an enormous saving there would be in lighterage. So far back as 1913, the divisional superintendent at East London reported that if inside harbour accommodation were provided for all vessels visiting the port, a sum of £28,891 per annum would be saved in lighterage and other charges. The position is obviously much better in 1928 than it was in 1913. I have not the figures for the latter year, but I think I am quite safe in assuming that the saving to the State would be very large indeed. It is interesting to note from the report of the Railways and Harbours Board that no fewer than 6,912 tourists visited this country during 1927. Very few visited East London. They are deterred chiefly by one reason, and that is the fact that large steamers have to disembark their passengers by basket into a tug on the open roadstead, and that is an ordeal which a great number of passengers, particularly women and children, are unwilling to face. Thus the progress of the port is being hampered. The Minister’s reply is that he is only acting, and that he does not like to sanction such a big expense in the absence of the responsible Minister. That answer is entitled to all the weight it deserves. I do not know how much that is. Every port must progress. There must be additional expenditure on every port from year to year. We are living in an oil age and we must make provision for the safe arrival and stowage of oil. The oil will come in bulk and it is necessary to make arrangements for handling that when it reaches our shores. There is an ideal site of 100 acres on the west bank, and I believe there is a company prepared to spend a very large sum— it is said up to £1,000,000—in developing oil storage arrangements, if only steamers can come in and turn round and be able safely to discharge their cargoes. I hope the Minister will be able to give some more reassuring statement. The case is unanswerable. I am sure when the case is considered on its merits, there will be no question but that it should be granted. The actual cost of excavation would practically be but a hook transaction, and, if this were done, the wharfage could follow later, if would go a long way towards meeting the requirements of the people at East London. I wonder if the Minister ever looked at the comparative expenditure on our ports. In 1927 on Table Bay it was £330,000, Algoa Bay £119,000, Durban £244,000 and East London had to be content with the miserable pittance of £22,000. Wool is the largest individual agricultural export that goes from this country and no produce circulate so quickly. The money goes into the farmers’ pockets, and after that into those of the merchants and storekeepers and so many benefit immediately. Everything should be done to develop the economic export of wool, and the claims of East London I do not think can be gainsaid. All these figures should show the Minister that the-port is not getting fair treatment.

I rise early to deal with the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G, B. van Zyl) to reduce the salary of the Minister, as he stated, in connection with the failure on the part of the Government to order an extensive general enquiry into the state of our railways. The hon. member commenced by stating that this was not a party matter. Well, generally speaking, I have not much fault to find with the manner in which he presented his case. He believes in an enquiry, but unfortunately it is only too true that during the last few weeks, or perhaps few months, a campaign has been going on in this country in connection with the unfortunate experiences we have had in connection with our railways. I say a campaign, which is certainly not calculated to do our railways any good, or to get at the actual defects in our system and to conduce to the taking of steps to assure the safety of our travelling public. I think nothing could have been more unfortunate than the prominence and publicity which certain sections of the press have given to what has taken place, unfortunately, during the period to which I have been referring. The hon. member in calling for an enquiry, based his case on what he called the large and increasing number of accidents, major and minor, which have been taking place during the last few years. He has not endeavoured to show, from such enquiries as have been held, that there is any evidence to show that there is anything seriously wrong with our railways. He has asked the question, “What is wrong with our railways?” but he has not referred to anything. Of course, the press outside, I do not think we can acquit them altogether of an intention of having a party score—the hon. member has not given an indication that he attributes the accidents to any specific causes in connection with either the policy or management of these railways. He has based his case on what he thinks an uncommonly large number of accidents which have taken place recently, and he thought that the enquiries which have taken place have not been satisfactory and have not given us the true causes. The hon. member, in connection with a particular enquiry, complained of a certain levity which he said characterized it. I do not know what it has to do with the point at issue to-night. These enquiries are conducted by the Department of Justice, and do not fall under the Railway Administration at all. I would be sorry to believe that what he calls a spirit of levity took place during those proceedings. In regard to the enquiries into the Hex River accident, you have a magistrate of experience and two engineers not connected with the Railway Department at all. In addition you have, in connection with this enquiry, as with all these enquiries, a thorough departmental investigation. The hon. member has compared our enquiries with a similar enquiry by Sir John Pringle of the Board of Trade in England, to show how minutely the circumstances of an accident are enquired into, and he quoted certain findings to show how carefully the condition of the rolling stock and of the track is gone into. The hon. member will appreciate that in England, where the railways are owned by dividend earning companies, the Government considers it as a special duty to keep a very watchful eye on all these matters. Here, in our country, our railways are Government owned and not dividend earning, and have to give the best service to the public, and it is to the interests of the Railway Administration to see that the railways are as safe as possible; if an accident occurs to probe it as much as possible, to find the cause and to remedy it. There is a very strong reason why, in the course of its departmental enquiry, the Railway Administration should go very deeply into the cause of these accidents, but the hon. member has no faith in the enquiries that have been ordered and held into the particular accidents that have occurred. We shall have to enquire on what basis such an enquiry as the hon. member wants is justified. We did not hear very much of the necessity of a general enquiry formerly, until the last distressing accident took place, and on that accident, for instance, people in this country thought it worth while and necessary to telegraph very full particulars overseas to show how unsafe our railways are, and what distressing accidents took place; but we are not singular in this respect as to the number or seriousness of the accidents which take place on these railways. That is an experience common to all railway systems. On April 30th last there was a very serious railway accident in England of which we heard nothing in this country. Two trains collided, as a result of which six persons were conveyed to hospital and twenty others were hurt. Last year the sort of atmosphere that prevails here in regard to railway accidents just now also existed in England, leading the “Times” (London) to make some severe strictures which were commented upon by the “Railway Gazette” which observed, inter alia—

Broken carriage couplings, which are described as a very serious accident by the South African newspapers, occurred to the number of 2,000 a year in England, and of broken axles there are nearly 5,000 yearly. The “Railway Gazette” proceeds—

You can apply nearly every word that is written here to the situation that exists in South Africa Concluding, the “Railway Gazette” says—

Do you blame the late Government for that?

The statement includes—

All in one week. Take another week—

Another week! I ask hon. members to give me any week during that period. It is not necessary to ask who was in charge. I merely quote this to show that you have the atmosphere to which my hon. friend refers, when the press is out to magnify every little incident in normal working and you only have a condition which, in 1924 and generally, was considered normal working of the railways. Give me any week and I will give you any equally long list of ordinary minor accidents and derailments on our rail roads. We did not hear the necessity for enquiry during those days. Then they were considered normal working, The hon. member based his case for an enquiry, on what he called the unusually large number of railway accidents. For that to justify such an enquiry, I think I can reasonably ask that, as a result of enquiry, held into specific accidents, there must have been evidence of a generally connected cause, but there is nothing of the kind. In nearly every-one of those enquiries the finding was very definite. A definite cause was ascertained. I have taken out the findings in the accidents which took place during 1926-’27. Unfortunately, I would have to keep the House too long if I had to analyse everyone, but if that was done, hon. members would see that there were very definite findings in regard to every accident. The general manager has furnished me with a statement of particulars of serious accidents involving passenger trains in whch persons were injured or killed from October 4th, 1924, to April 30th, 1928. Summarised, they may be classified as follows: defective equipment, 7; failures of human element, 32; tampering with rails, etc., 6; miscellaneous, 12. Take the three major accidents, very serious accidents that have occurred in this country. Take Salt River. I trust my hon. friend was satisfied that the cause of that accident was ascertained. It was again tile failure of the human element. I do not think there is any doubt about the cause of that accident having been ascertained. Take the very serious accident at Mapleton in the Transvaal—perhaps one of the most serious in the country. There was no doubt about what happened there. A very experienced driver of long service overran a station and a collision took place with regrettable loss of life. That was a very definite finding. Then we have the Hex River accident. Unfortunately we have not a finding there yet, and I do not want to discuss it, but let me remind the House that that was the third serious accident that took place over that piece of road in 50 years. The point I want to make is that, in the vast majority of these cases there was a definite finding that it was the failure of the human element. Do you want an enquiry to tell us what we should do to remedy that?

Why not?

I can only tell my hon. friend that that is the experience of every country in the world. In America we have the very definite finding that in 100 accidents there, probably about 94 are due to the failure of the human element and about 6 to mechanical causes—flaws in mechanism— and you can do what you like, you cannot altogether eliminate them.

You can reduce them.

Does the hon. member think our management is not doing everything possible to reduce them? What do you want an enquiry for when you know the cause?

An independent en quiry.

My hon. friend this afternoon, I think very fairly, did not make the suggestion, perhaps insinuation, and assign causes that have been made in the press, but I do not propose to deal with that unless hon. members come out in the open and definitely make those charges. Hon. members who are members of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours have had every opportunity, I believe, to examine the general manager and senior officers of the railway administration. They have had an opportunity to ascertain whether the allegation that is made that the administration has been hampered in any way as a result of the policy in the administration of the railways is true. Do hon. members want to make the charge that the administration has been interfered with in any way as a result of the policy of the Government?

We do not suggest that.

Well, I want to know what we have to meet. If the management is not being hampered through policy, is there any suggestion that our general manager or senior officers are incapable of properly running these railways? The hon. member said this afternoon that he thought any inquiry would show that our management is absolutely capable. The Government does not run the railways. The management is responsible. If an inquiry has to be acceded to we must face the facts. It must be then because we think that the people entrusted by us with the running of the railways are incapable of doing so and of finding out the defects in the system, and that you want somebody else to come and point them out. If that is not so, what must an independent committee of inquiry do, because, I think it must be admitted that we have a very capable staff on both the engineering and managerial side of our railways? Now a demand is made for an inquiry. Let me say at once that I have given very serious thought to this matter. I fully realize the responsibility which I have, acting as I do for my colleague, who is ordinarily responsible for the railway. I have done my best to find out whether the best interests of the country will actually be served by acceding to that demand. I have had consultations with the general manager and the senior officers to find out whether such an inquiry will be of the slightest assistance to us to get to the bottom, whether there is anything wrong, if there is the slightest suspicion of anything wrong, whether we can get together a body or commission which would be capable of coming to point out to us those defects and assist us in meeting them. I must confess that my investigations have not convinced me that we would be serving the interests of this country by having such an inquiry as is suggested by the hon. member. Let us ascertain what our experience is likely to be if we agree to such an inquiry. I presume hon. members will at once say that you are not likely to find any people in this country impartial enough and capable enough of coming to tell our own people what is wrong with the railways. I suppose we can rule that out at once.

Why?

Well, who are you going to get?

Ex-officials.

Will those ex-officials be more capable in finding out the defects in our system than our own officials? I presume that we shall have to go overseas.

No.

If we do, what has been our experience in the past, when we were crying stinking fish, and did not consider our own South Africans were good enough to show what was necessary in this country? And when we did go overseas, I need only remind the House of our grain elevator experience which cost this country nearly £200,000 for professional advice; thrown into the water. There was the harbour investigation, costing thousands of pounds. That has been of no benefit to this country. There was also the electrification matter, Merz & McClellan, when our own South Africans had to show us what was actually wrong. Our friends in Durban got out somebody the other day to tell them what was wrong with the administration in Durban. I do not know that they are very happy over that. You are not going to get anybody from oversea who is sufficinetly acquainted with the conditions obtaining in this country, with its 3 ft. 6 in gauge, which will be of the slightest use to tell us what is wrong, if there is anything wrong, with our railways, If you go to Great Britain or the Continent, you will get eminent engineers who are altogether unacquainted with the conditions in South Africa. Our own engineers are much better acquainted with the conditions here than those men. If you go to a country like Australia, where they have a narrow gauge, or Japan, we remember that those countries have sent engineers to this country to see what we were doing.

You cannot learn from them?

That being so, how are you going to succeed in constituting a board of inquiry which is going to be of any use, which is going to show you anything that we do not know as to the probable causes of mishaps to our trains? Unless we are prepared to say openly that we are not trusting our people, not trusting their ability an I capacity to deal with the situation, I do not think there is any ground for acceding to an inquiry, as has been suggested by the hon. member My hon. friend mentioned, as one of the reasons, the opinion which is supposed to be held by certain members of the staff. The hon. member has referred us to what we saw in the press at a certain meeting held here in Cape Town and another in Johannesburg, where certain statements were supposed to have been made. By whom were those statements made, after all? Was it not a case of paid officials of such a society, whose business it is—

They were engine drivers themselves.

Excuse me, I think one of the, gentlemen who made these serious statements is a well-known political ally of my hon. friend, who probably had not only the interests of the poor engine drivers to serve. I think in all these cases you had paid officials of these societies who made these statements and, if that was actually so, why did you not hear before, why were no representations made to the management about the supposed condition of our engines, permanent way, etc., before? Why should these statements be made at this stage when we have got what my right hon. friend called the “railway atmosphere”?

Surely you do not call the editor of the newspaper belonging to N.U.R.A.H.S. a friend of this party?

No, but I refer to another gentleman who made these serious statements as a political ally of my hon. friend. I think my hon. friend there (Mr. Jagger) has had some experience of the attitude sometimes adopted by this particular organization in regard to railway management in this country.

Who is that?

The N.U.R.A.H.S.

He is no friend of ours.

No, I did not say that. And why was he not a friend of the hon. member? Has the hon. member such faith in the statements made by that organization?

No.

That is though for my, argument. Then in regard to our permanent way, certain suggestions have been made.

Everything is all right.

I would like the hon. member to tell me what is wrong. Now, in regard to the permanent way, we do not deny that we are continually spending huge sums of money to improve the permanent way. Our engines are heavier and heavier loads are carried, but vast sums of money have been spent during recent years and are being spent to-day, to improve the track, but I say this— that, in spite of the fact that our track will require continual strengthening, all the inquiries I have made and the assurances I have got from the officials who are responsible are to the effect that our permanent way is probably as good to-day as it has ever been in this country. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central), when he was associated with the railways, will remember that he cut out of the Capital and Betterment Estimates, when he was in office, large sums which were asked for by the department for this very purpose.

You will do the same now, I have not the slightest doubt.

I am not blaming the hon. member. That was actually done at the time, and, naturally, We lost ground during those years, but, subsequently, every year larger sums have been spent on the strengthening of our permanent way. Until to-day I have no hesitation in saying that the permanent way is better than it has ever been before in this country. That is the opinion of the officers. The point I want to make is that the track is to-day as safe as it has ever been in the history of our railways.

Then why do the accidents occur?

Just for the same reason that they occurred at the time when my hon. friend was in charge of the railways, when we had these large numbers of weekly accidents, to which I referred when my hon. friend was not in the House.

Not to the same extent as row.

Twice as much in your time.

I want to give the House a few figures showing the percentages of accidents that have taken place, serious accidents, fatal accidents, in relation to the number of trains run, and the number of passengers carried. In proportion to the number of passengers carried for the years 1920-’21 to 1926-’27, the last year in respect of which figures are available, the following is the percentage of fatal accidents in relation to the number of trains run: 1920-’21, 0.219; 1921-’22, 0.65; 1922-’23, nil; 1923-’24, 0.122; 1924-’25, 0.155;. 1925-’26, nil; 1926-’27, 0.212.

That was your regime.

Yes, very much less than 1920-’21 under the regime of my hon. friend, when the figures were 0.219; and the following year, 1925-’26, nil. My hon. friend is not listening.

You are just wrong. In 1920-21 I was not there.

In 1926-’27, 0.212. That was the year in which we had the Salt River accident, and if you eliminate that one accident, the causes of which are known, the number of fatal accidents is nil. But why did not my hon. friend ask for an inquiry to find out what is wrong with the railways?

Because it was not as bad as it is now. That is the simple reason.

Then, coming to the number of passengers carried, the figures are as follows: March 31st, 1920; 33,500,000 train miles run; 60,732,000 passenger journeys. March 31st, 1927, 45,000,000 train miles run, and over 80,000,000 passengers, and a proportionate increase in the number of goods trains run in this country. If I did give the accidents, for instance, to motor vehicles in this mother city of Cape Town, it would astonish my hon. friend.

What has that to do with it? We must have a better explanation than that.

I had better not do so. I do not think, because we have had an extraordinarily bad run of luck, that it is fair to say now there is something wrong with our railways. We have gone through an unfortunate time, and I can assure the House that every possible step is being taken by the management to tighten up in various directions, and everything possible is being done, of course, to minimize these accidents. In the majority of cases the cause is well known, the failure of the human element, which you have in every country. Our running staff and our officials generally and the men, our railwaymen, they are probably as good as you will find anywhere in the world. But as you: have failures, as you have lapses, in other railway systems, so you have them in South Africa. We are doing everything possible to instil a sense of discipline, to ask these people to be careful and try and eliminate all these regrettable occurrences. If allowances are made for all these things, I submit that no case whatever has been made out to prove anything seriously wrong with the railways of which our own officers are not themselves aware and are doing all they can to put right. For these reasons I think we should not be serving the best interests of the country if we agreed that the position in regard to our railways was actually such as to warrant such an extended and general inquiry as my hon. friend advocates.

I am sorry that the Minister has spoken in this combative tone. We certainly, from our side, started the debate on entirely different lines. I think it is quite unnecessary for us to approach this subject in a polemical spirit at all. The Minister is wrong when he thinks that the feeling which there is in this country has been worked up by the press. Nothing of the kind whatever. The press simply writes in response to a strong feeling which exists, and it would be a very grave error of judgment on the part of the Minister to think that the feeling that exists is the result of what appears in the press. No. And I am very sorry. The Minister has given; us a good deal of valuable information tonight, but the tone in which he has spoken and his apparent" and almost painful effort to whitewash the situation, will certainly not pacify the country outside. I think we ought to deal with these matters in quite a different spirit. The Minister has himself disposed of the criticism which he has levelled against us. He has admitted himself that he, with all his official Information, with all the sources of information at his disposal, has given this very subject of an inquiry very serious consideration. If he has done so he must have had some reason for it, and how can he blame us for asking for it?

I was trying to see whether there was any justification for the very persistent demand made by the press outside.

But the Minister has admitted that he gave the subject of an inquiry most serious consideration. He is in a much better position than we to judge. He gave the subject his most serious consideration. I do not suppose he was influenced by the press. This press agitation need not affect his mind. But on the inside information he had he still gave it very serious consideration. I do not think it is fair on his part, therefore, to blame us when we, not from a party point of view at all, but entirely in the public interest, voice public feeling and press for an inquiry. I think the Minister should set aside entirely the idea that we are making a party attack here. We are not making a party attack. We are voicing public opinion. If hon. members on the other side think there is no feeling in the country, they are making a very great mistake. Let us deal with the matter fairly and squarely. My hon. friend this afternoon said that these inquiries, which are held in the ordinary course of law, are rather in the nature of inquests; they are not railway inquiries so much as inquiries by the Department of Justice, and they are really in the nature of railway inquests. What we want is an inquiry of a public character. Something which will go deeper, something which will go more into the principles of the subject. The Minister says that if we do that we appear not to trust our Railway Administration, our own men. That is taking a very distorted view of the situation. I do not approach it from that point of view at all. Our railwaymen and railway service are second to none in the world—that is admitted. We have, from various Governments and Railway Administrations of the world, time and again, had the finest tributes paid to the way in which our railways are run here. Our men are in no sense inferior to the men we had heretofore; the country has reason to be proud of its railway servants. There is nothing in the attitude that this is an attack on the railwaymen. [Interruption.] I am taking the Railway Administration. Governments from other parts of the world send men to study how we are doing it, and they would not do so unless they were convinced that our railway service is a credit to the country. At the same time we have these accidents. The Minister says they have occurred before. Of course railway accidents always occur, and you can quote in any week of any year a long list of normal accidents, if I may call them such. But sometimes you have something quite different; there is no doubt there is something quite different now, and we have had it for some time—accidents on a different scale.

Which?

The Prime Minister has never heard of Mapleton and Hex River? Sometimes there is a recrudescence of accidents, and that is a phenomenon that is well known.

Well known; normal; and now you want to enquire into it.

Even taking that into account, we have a situation to-day which has alarmed the public, and reasonably alarmed the public. When you find accidents on the scale we have had recently, you cannot blame the public when they get alarmed and you have unsettlement and misgivings all round. I should have thought the Minister would have approached this in a more sympathetic spirit. He is wrong if he thinks that this amendment is moved with a party object, or that the only thing behind it is press agitation. There is no press agitation behind it at all. The press is simply drawing attention to these facts because these are alarming the public.

That is why they are chronicling hot-boxes which were never chronicled before?

It may happen for a few days that particular attention is drawn to these things, but the papers will not continue a campaign of this kind. The Minister is taking an entirely wrong view if he mixes up the ordinary run of accidents which take place with these exceptional accidents which alarm the public to-day. What we want to know is what is wrong. I know in former years, the late general manager, Sir William Hoy, used to say we had not reached the limit of the 3 ft. 6 ins. gauges of which it was capable. We really want to know. We know we have been putting on speed and weight all the time, making greater and heavier demands all the time on this particular restricted system we have adopted, and it would ease the minds of the people of this country very much if they could feel sure that we are not overtaxing this system to which we are committed.

Who is better able to say that than our own officials?

I am very glad to hear that in the opinion of our technical officers the permanent way has never been in a better state than it is to-day. If that is the opinion of the technical officers of the railways it will go a long way to pacify the minds of the people in this country. It is a statement, of course, we must accept; still the accidents occur. The Minister says that the flagrant cases to which he has referred are a case of what is called the human factor, and he says that they can be attributed to this. “Human factor” is a vague term. It is a question what “human factor” means in any particular case, and it may be necessary to probe into the human factor. If our permanent way is safe and no fault is to be found with our 3 ft. 6 in. system and the demands we make on it, if that is all right, and we have to fall back on the “human factor”, we must probe into that.

Our own people can probe into that as well as anybody.

The Minister must not take the official point of voew. The man in the street wants something more impartial and some thing more than what is of official concern. The Minister, as the departmental head, and the man in charge of the department, knows that great weight has to be attached to the departmental officials. [Time limit.]

There is not the least doubt that this whole matter is one of great importance and it has particularly become a weighty one on account of the particular significance which has been given to it during the past three months by the newspapers of our country. It is of course of the greatest importance to us when anything is wrong to go into it, not only to find out what is wrong, but also to calm the feelings of the public. It is of the greatest importance to us to know the truth, in the first place so that we can see what ought to be done, if an alteration has to be made, and for the second great reason that especial emphasis has been laid in the country on all the small accidents. Practically there were none of great importance except those mentioned by the Minister. Let us admit that there has been a state of nervousness throughout the whole country during the past nine or twelve months. This has two disadvantages, it undoubtedly deters people from coming from elsewhere to use our railways, and it also deters the population from using the railways, and even if that were not an argument it is sufficient reason for going into the matter properly to see that everything is done to run our rail ways properly. It is therefore of great importance. Now the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) says, “We want to know what is wrong.” Is anything wrong? Let me ask the hon. member the question. If he says “We want to know what is wrong”, that suggests that there is something extraordinary.

Those are the cases we are talking about.

Is that anything y-extraordinary?

It looks like it.

But how can it look like it after what he has just been shown by the Minister of Finance, namely, that during the Government of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) such occurrences took place weekly and monthly up to 18 of those happenings in one week, and the hon. member hears that and still comes and tells us that there is something wrong. No, as a responsible man—

You cannot compare the occurrences, trilling occurrences.

I asked the hon. member how many extraordinary cases he could mention beyond those mentioned by the Acting Minister of Railways, and he could not give one, and, what is more, after it has been represented to him by the Minister of Finance that, during his period of office, the percentage of accidents to travellers on the railways has been higher than since 1924, he comes and says that something is wrong. Now I ask again, and in all earnestness of the hon. member, what is extraordinarily wrong, because it is irresponsible action such as that now being taken by the hon. member for Standerton, which causes neverousness throughout the length and breadth of the country. He and others who talk like that, are responsible. Now it happened again to-night, that as soon as hon. members opposite found that they had gone too far, and had been tapped over the knuckles, then the “spirit" was spoken about; now it is the spirit of the Minister of Finance, because he takes up the matter so seriously. Just imagine, as if there were anything more deserving of seriousness than the rebutting of such false imputations. But, what is more, the hon. member for Standerton says that there is no press agitation. Then I ask the House if there is anyone who I agrees with him? Was there no agitation all the time after the accident at Mapleton, or shortly after? It was, in my opinion, a scan dalous agitation, of such a scandalous nature, that practically everyone who had anything to do with the railways, the drivers and the rest of the staff, always felt every morning when they got up and saw all the silly old accidents which were collected from the length and breadth of South Africa, “hot-boxes”, and such like things, were made nervous, and it interfered with their duty. Everybody in the railway service felt it. It was scandalous, and the same scandalous agitation goes on from day to clay. Only this morning, or yesterday morning, what was the telegram that was sent? That a piece of rail had broken off. There was quite a long article and not a line of it but was clearly written, and sent with the object of creating a sensation, and if the report was not published by the papers to create a sensation, then I want to know what the object was. I do not say that it is an agitation by the editors, but I do say it was agitation on the part of those who sent the report.

An organising secretary of the Opposition.

But were there not supporters of the Opposition who expressed themselves in the most sensational way in connection with Mapleton, and subsequently about the conditions of the railway? Did we not hear, inter alia, that one of the causes was the unskilled workmen whom the Minister of Railways had put into positions from which others had been dismissed? Did we not hear that it was the civilized labour policy? Is that not being sold almost morning alter morning? And then they dare to come and say that there was no agitation. Then they say that it is solely and only to get at the truth, and then, when the truth is placed before them, and it is shown that during their administration things were worse than during the last four years, they simply shut their ears. And then the hon. members come and say that they consider a different enquiry necessary from what has hitherto been customary. Well, if there is to be a different enquiry from what we have: hitherto had, then there must be a different reason. And am I wrong? What is extraordinarily wrong? My hon. friend issued a challenge, and I challenged the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr, dagger) to take away one week in 1924 during his administration and I will show that ho fewer accidents or at any rate just as many took place as in any week during the later period. Of course they cannot do it, they knew it very well all the time. Now they have suddenly found the “spirit”, the “railway spirit” as they call it, which has now been created, and accordingly a special enquiry must be made. I must say that if there is one thing I deplore, then it is the spirit of complaining, for party purposes, against the railways about the accidents which have occurred during the past nine or twelve months. There is not one hon. member opposite I want to accuse of it, but one thing is certain, namely, that it is being done by men who certainly are not supporters of the Nationalist party.

I listened very carefully to what the hon. member for Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) had to say in support of his request for an entirely independent commission to enquire into railway accidents in order, so he said, “to restore public confidence in the running of our railways.” The acting Minister of Railways, when replying, said he had no fault to find with the way in which the hon. member presented his case. The Minister is very generous indeed, for surely there was no necessity to give all the harrowing details of both the major and the minor accidents that Slave taken place on our railways since June, 1924. Surely it was not necessary for the hon. member to tell us how many people were killed and injured during that period. Everyone in the House knew exactly why he instanced the year 1924 and onwards. One of the accidents mentioned by the hon. member could not have been prevented by the finest railway organization in the world, and that was the very unfortunate disaster at Onderbroekspruit in Natal. This was caused by a cloud burst some distance up the valley which swept away the bridge, and the engine fell into the bed of the spruit. The driver, fireman and one of the ticket collectors were killed. It was undoubtedly an act of God. The hon. the Minister has not given an indication whether he is prepared to appoint a commission or not, but I cannot help thinking that one of the things a commission would find, if appointed, would be that some of the accidents, at all events, are due to the neglect of the permanent way between the years 1921 and 1924, when the enlarged South African party were in power. The then Minister of Railways, the hon. member for Cape Town Central) (Mr. Jagger) reduced the staff to such an extent during that time that I am sure the permanent way was not kept up to standard.

Hold an inquiry and see for yourself.

An inquiry would prove, that neglect of the permanent way, and failure, to strengthen it properly in various sections, has only now become apparent. Both the rolling stock and repairs to the main and branch lines were neglected between 1921 and 1924 to an extent hitherto unknown. There is no question that we all appreciate the value of the work the staff render—clerical, artisan, transportation and all other grades on the railway—and we realize the great risks that the running staff men have to contend with. If any enquiry is held, I hope the Minister will see that representatives of the running staff find a place on the board. There is something to be said for an inquiry. Meetings of railwaymen are being held all over the country, and I am charged by me railwaymen present at a gathering held last week in Durban, representative of the whole of Natal, to bring the matters discussed at that meeting to the attention of the Minister and the House. Railwaymen of all shades of political opinion were present. One resolution passed was to the effect that in the event of any board being appointed to enquire into recent accidents, they were to insist that the employees would be represented thereon.

The men also want an enquiry?

They did not say they wanted an enquiry. Possibly they may have anticipated the request by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). Here is the resolution—

There is no necessity for giving a supporter of any political party a job to inquire into the running of our railways, but the men, who have to bear the brunt when accidents take place, should be represented. Another matter discussed in Durban was the long service increment which the railwaymen consider should be consolidated in the wages, and that all members in the service should qualify for it. I understand that when tile hon. member for Cape Town (Central) became Minister of Railways, he gave instructions to the then general manager to issue a circular that the long service increment would only be paid to pre-union men. The result of this is that in time it will disappear altogether. I have no doubt that was what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) desired. Another matter already touched open by the member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) was that of railway allowances. After considerable pressure, a cost of living allowance was granted to railwaymen in Durban, and later extended a little up the line, but, strange to say, only up one of the main lines runing out of Durban, and we have the, anomaly that the living cost allowance is not paid for the same distance up the new line as it is up the old line. For instance, the Durban cost of living allowance is paid at Malvern, but not at Mount Vernon, which is on the new line, not so far distant from Durban as Malvern is. The men cannot understand this anomaly. There is something worth while for a commission to go into. There is a lot of discontent due to the fact that men in Durban are paid a cost of living allowance, and men in Johannesburg and Pretoria receive a local allowance, while the men in Pietermaritzburg, who to-day find their living cost is as high as anywhere else, not excluding Durban are denied similar concessions. I do think that something should be done in this matter. There is one other question that I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice, and that is the unsatisfactory position in connection with the board of reference and conciliation. [Time limit.]

There is certainly no one who more regrets the accidents on the railways than hon. members on this side. I am sorry things have been said on the opposite side as if we did not deplore the accidents, and as if we were not deeply sympathetic with the unfortunate victims. I am very sorry the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) is not in his place, because I want to answer a remark of his. He said that there was a fault in the railway administration. I want to challenge my hon. friend to prove that the administration is worse to-day than ever before. But that is not the point to which I want to draw the Minister’s attention, but it is the unfortunate position of our stock farmers after the calamity of a drought lasting for years, and about the transport of their stock over the railway. We acknowledge the concession that they only charge quarter rates for the carriage of stock, but about 1,840,000 animals were carried, and I say unhesitatingly that at least 800,000 of the animals carried died besides the other animals who died owing to the drought, and these were millions and millions. For that transport there is a sum of £128,000 now owing to the Government, and while I acknowledge the sympathetic attitude of the Government, and that it is not pressing the people to pay their debts at once, the debts remain, and it is like a sword over the heads of the poor farmers, and from our knowledge of the farmer he will not try to evade payment of that amount. I want to urge the Minister and the Railway Board to write off this debt as soon as ever possible. This is not an extraordinary request. We have had calamaties and epidemics, then the amount spent in connection, with the fighting and remedying of such calamaties was a matter of indifference. At the moment a great deal is being written off the land settlements, and I fear that millions will have to be written off irrigation works. The tobacco farmers have been assisted, and there has been a writing off of nearly a quarter of a million pounds in favour of the maize farmers. The hoot factories have been protected to the extent of about £1,000,000, while the ostrich feather industry has been met to the extent of £120,000, and the amount may possibly be much larger still. Further, we are giving protection to wheat farmers, Here we are concerned with a lawful debt to the Government, payment will be extended possibly for twelve months or two years, but it remains a debt, and it presses very heavily on the farmers, 50 to 60 per cent. of whom are ruined, and will never be able to repay the amount. I hope the Minister and his Railway Board will consider the matter and will write off the amount in the interests of the farmer and the people in general.

I wish to bring up a matter which is causing a good deal of discontent and heartburning in the service, but, before I do so, I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on the very painstaking way in which he dealt with all matters that were brought up: during the Railway Budget debate. We know that the Minister usually carries the heaviest load in the Cabinet, but in spite of the fact that on this occasion he was carrying a double burden, he went very exhaustively into all the items that were mentioned and, speaking for myself, I want to thank him. I regret that the Minister of Railways is not present, because the question I wish to raise is one of policy, and it would have been preferable if the Minister responsible had been here. No doubt the matter which took him out of the country was an urgent one, and I want the Acting Minister to realize that the grievance I wish to air is also a very urgent one, and I hope the remarks I am about to make will be received in the spirit in which they are made. Naturally, as an ex-railwayman, I am very jealous of the rights of the staff, rights which have taken years to get, rights which I, in my small way, have helped to obtain, and rights which I hope will be maintained so that we can make this branch of our railway service second to none in the world. Now I wish to move—

In order to challenge the Ministerial policy in regard to the management and control of the South African Railways and Harbours Sick Fund. Hon. members will recollect that over a year ago I warned the Minister that very serious results would follow if he continued interfering with the control of the Sick Fund. When the railway estimates were before this committee last year, Sick Fund matters were again very fully discussed, but the Minister has disregarded all warnings and advice, and has gone a good deal further than he led this committee to believe he intended going. In fact he has completely taken away the control and management from the various boards by the alteration of rules 66 and 71, which now make the Minister and the Railway Board absolute dictators as far as the sick fund is concerned. The reason given for this policy is that the position of the administration, being held responsible to Parliament and the country for the actions of the sick fund board, was rapidly becoming an impossible one. I must say a bigger piece of bluff and eye-wash I have never seen, and when the Minister replies, I hope he will give proof of one action on the part of the sick fund board which has made the position of the administration an impossible one. We must remember that the sick fund only came into operation in 1913, and it was only when the present Minister took office that any friction whatever occurred Even the supposedly stony-hearted member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) when he was Minister did not attempt to interfere with the right of the staff to look after their own affairs. Naturally this very important and far-reaching change was stoutly resisted by the central board of the sick fund and they pointed out that the appointment, discharge and control of railway medical officers was vested in the central sick fund board, a board fully representative of both the administration and the members in terms of the sick fund regulations framed under Section 88 of Act 28 of 1912 and duly promulgated in 1913 with the approval of the Railway Board and the Government. These regulations were the outcome of many years experience and consultation between the staff and the administration, the appointment and control of medical officers being the most important of the functions of the central board which is responsible for the control and management of the fund as a whole. They go on further to say that the alteration of regulations 66 and 71 was effected without reference to or consultation with, the members of the sick fund, although the members contribute to the revenue of the fund £100 for every £75 contributed by the administration. I say a more unjust, unfair and undemocratic policy could not be introduced, and this by a Minister who is always posing in this House and outside, as a friend of the railwaymen. Another disturbing feature is that on June 14th of last year, during the debate on supply, the Minister of Railways stated “we have not taken powers to a point.” Later on in the same debate he said—

Later on, during the same debate, the Minister made use of these words—

Well, in spite of these statements made on the 14th June, 1927, the regulations were amended with effect from the 1st August, 1927, giving the administration the power of appointment. I should think that the legal machinery must have been in motion when the Minister made that statement. I trust not. I hope every railway-man will note that, within six weeks of the Minister’s statement, the regulations are altered and the power of appointment is taken out of the hands of the sick fund board, and I think every hon. member has the right to ask what is the value of the Minister’s assurances. I would like to show what serious friction and unpleasantness the introduction of this Mussolini policy is causing and how far the solicitude of the Minister for the smooth and economical working of the Fund is genuine. During 1926 a vacancy for a medical officer occurred at Burghersdorp. Applications were called for in the usual way and after very careful consideration the district board recommended Dr. Biccard; that recommendation was passed on to the central board and they concurred in the recommendation, and it was resolved to appoint Dr. Biccard who had acted as locum and who held the temporary appointment, but the Minister and his colleagues without assigning any reason, selected Dr. Louw, and when the central board pressed for a reason, no reply was received. Another vacancy occurred at Pretoria and the sick fund, acting on the rule that those already in the service should have preference, all things being equal, appointed Dr. Sash who had had six years-service and was the only applicant, hut again without assigning any reason, the Minister and the board turned down the sick fund’s choice and appointed Dr. Phillips.

Where did Dr. Sash live?

I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with his railway service. Another vacancy occurred at Pretoria and the sick fund chose Dr. Diamond. Again their choice was ignored without any explanation, and the Minister said Dr. van Rensburg must be appointed. When these appointments again came before the central hoard, they unanimously resolved to again confirm the recommendations of the district hoards concerned. In spite of that the Railway Board appointed Drs. Louw, Philip and van Rensburg and ordered the sick fund to make the necessary arrangements. In none of these cases was the appointment made by the sick fund, and in view of the hon. Minister’s statement “that the question of political jobbery or the appointment of a particular friend of the Minister or members of the Railway Board does not arise because the final appointment is made by the sick fund.” I think we have every right to ask whether the question of political jobbery and so on has not already arisen. After a further minute had been submitted by the sick fund, the Railway Board put up a long rambling statement in which an endeavour was made to refute the claims of the fund and to belittle the sick fund board in the eyes of the members, and this statement was published and circulated to the staff by special notice. No. 1732, on September 10th, 1927. The central board requested that their reply to the Railway Board’s memorandum should be given equal publicity for the benefit of the members of the fund and the staff generally, but this was not acceded to. To my mind this is most unfair, and whilst I do not wish to go into all the statements made by the Railway Board, many of which are incorrect and others only half-truths, I do want to refer to their statement. “That the idea which occurred to the Railway Board is the possibility of reorganising the concern in such a manner as to effect economies in working and administration which would permit of improved benefits to the members of the fund.” It is entirely with this end in view that the Administration has asked that the question of the institution of the panel system should again be thoroughly examined. A system whereby the servants of the Administration would have the option of selecting their own medical advisers because the Railway Board does not share the view expressed by the general secretary of the sick fund in his letter of the 21st April, 1925, “that in the opinion of the district Board the panel system is unsuited to the railway servants, and that it was unanimously against the introduction either in Johannesburg or else-where.” “That the Railway Board is in favour of the panel system should in itself be a clear indication to the central board that it is not with any idea of interference with the control and management of the sick fund that regulation No. 66 was amended, but entirely in the interests of proper control as reflected by Parliament whose members in turn have to voice the opinion of their constituents, whether they be railway servants or medical men.” “What fine sentiments,” I can imagine every railwayman saying. “How splendid; economies in working, more benefits and every man to choose his own doctor without ministerial interference.” In this statement the Minister and his colleagues on the Board very conveniently forgot to mention the views of a special committee which considered the reinstitution of the panel system of medical service by special request of the Minister, which reported on the 13th July, 1926. “That from the point of view of the sick fund as a whole and its wise administration the panel system is not at all attractive, and has little, if anything, to recommend it.” Further on the report says, “The committee is satisfied that the panel system is not suited to a fund such as the railways and harbours sick fund by reason of the character and magnitude of the fund’s operations and their interdependence with those of the Administration.” That is the considered opinion of men who are thoroughly conversant with sick fund matters, men who have had years of experience, and who are anxious to do the best for the members as well as the Administration. In this connection it is-interesting to note that in the journal of the Medical Association of South Africa dated 25th June, 1927, the following appeared in the leading article headed “Railway medical appointments.” “He (the Minister) also promised to look into the possibility of instituting the panel system. This is unquestionably the ideal method of contract practice, but there are, in the case of the Railway Sick Fund, great difficulties in working it, difficulties which do not exist or are only nominal in ordinary benefit societies. In spite of the opinion of medical men, special committees, experts of the sick fund, members of the sick fund board, the recent general manager and the present general manager, the hon. Minister and his colleagues say that they are in favour of the panel system a system of which they know nothing and are prepared to learn less.” Let me say at once that in theory the panel system appears an ideal system. First of all you start on the basis of each member of the fund having confidence and choosing his own medical attendant. The railway medical officer also feels he has the confidence of his patient by virtue of his choice, and the principle of mutual trust and confidence seems the right foundation to proceed upon. There is also the provision that the R.M.O. who does the most work, that is, has the most patients, will receive the largest salary, and that should be an incentive for him to be attentive to his patients. This system was given a very exhaustive trial at Durban over a long period, and the sick fund was compelled to revert to the district system. It was found that the human element entered into the contract, the R.M.O. who was the most liberal in regard to drugs and medicine especially “household remedies,” and the most easy-going in regard to sick certificates scon had the largest number of patients. It was also found that the best doctors dropped out of the panel, as they would not be parties to shirking their duties even though it meant more pay. But the most damaging effect of all was the fact that by the panel system you put the management of the fund into the hands of the individual member and made control by the board impossible. The losses of the Natal district board during the years the panel system was in operation at Durban, namely, 1919, 1920, and 1921 were £2,168, £8,724 and £6,473, respectively. There is no doubt but that this system is an expensive one, and if this policy be forced on the fund it will cause a great deal of increased expenditure and will adversely affect the service in many ways. The Minister of Railways has made a huge mistake in interfering with the sick fund; his policy is already making itself felt, and all systems are showing debit balances as the result of the last 8 months’ working. The figures are: System A, which comprises the whole of the western system up to and including De Aar, for nine months ended December, 1926, credit balance £3,621; for nine months ended December, 1927, debit balance £1,758. System B, comprising the Free State, midland and eastern districts; for eight months ended November, 1926, credit balance £1,368; for eight months ended November, 1927, debit balance £1,773. System T, which includes the whole of the Transvaal, for eight months ended November, 1926, credit balance £748; for eight months ended November, 1927, debit balance £1,697. System N, Natal, for eight months ended November, 1926, credit balance £1,695; for eight months ended November, 1927, debit balance £821. This is the result of the policy which was introduced by the Minister to effect economies in working and management and so give greater benefits to members of the fund.

What policy has caused all that loss?

Evidently the Prime Minister has not followed me. Before the Minister Interfered the boards controlled their own affairs, the chief matter being the appointment of railway medical officers, but now that "is taken out of their hands and the fund is no longer a mutual fund.

Because they do not appoint the doctors.

Look at the results.

As there is now a debit of over £13,000 it does not look as if members were going to receive many increased benefits. The position has become so serious that a special committee has been appointed to tour the country and to go into sick fund matters. Circulars have been issued asking for help and co-operation of the staff with regard to the following matters: The financial position of the sick fund; the method of appointment of medical officers and specialists; re-organization and control and management of the funds; payment by members of fees for specialist’s treatment; the desirability or possibility, as the result of economies, of extending full dental treatment to members, and the question of admitting European labourers to membership of the fund. I will deal with only two points. In regard to the financial position of the sick fund, there is only one way in which to improve it, and that is to go back to the old position. Let the boards be formed of representatives in equal numbers of the administration and the members, and let each board elect its chairman and let the Sick Fund assume all control and responsibility. As to the appointment of medical officers, let the members feel that railway medical officers are chosen for their skill, honour and integrity and that the health of the members and their wives and families is not being endangered by the appointment of men whose only claim is that they are political pals of the Government in power. After the way the sick fund boards have been treated, is it fair to expect the staff to be interested, especially after their representatives on the sick fund have been treated by tile Minister in such a contemptible manner. This is not a party matter. I would criticize my own party if they acted in such a foolish manner, because, under the new policy, it will be impossible to keep political influence out of sick fund appointments, irrespective of which party is in power. I speak feelingly on this subject, because in the old Cape Government railway days I was very nearly dismissed from the railway service on account of polotical influence in sick fund matters, and my crime was sticking up for the sick fund rights of the lower paid men who were almost entirely Dutch-speaking South Africans. This new policy as laid down by the hon. Minister will have a very far-reaching effect, will make the members look upon the fund as a purely administrative affair and will destroy that feeling of mutual co-operation and responsibility without which it is impossible to make any scheme a success.

During the course of the hon. member’s remarks in regard to this fund, he made the extraordinary statement that because the Railway Board altered the regulations under which they have the final say in regard to the appointment of the medical officer, all these funds are now working at a loss. That is what the statement of the hon. member amounts to. I am informed that the board has not interfered to the slightest extent with the administration and management of that fund, except under this regulation under which, in about three or four cases, the recommendation of the members of the sick fund as regards the appointed doctors was not accepted. The present position is that the central committee of the sick fund still makes the recommendation in regard to the appointment, but the Railway Board has the right to refer back the recommendation, and ultimately if they cannot agree, to veto that recommendation and appoint the officer. I am prepared to defend that. Of course, there has been dissatisfaction in connection with the fund for a long time, and the administration has appointed a departmental committee to enquire into the whole question. The hon. member has read the terms of reference. He knows that a large body of railwaymen have always stood for the principle that they should have the right to select their own doctor. That is a view that was very strongly pressed in this House, and it seemed to me that the consensus of opinion was in favour of it. A large number of members in the House and members of the sick fund themselves feel that railwaymen should have the right, especially in serious cases, to select their own medical men. There are numbers of cases where a railwayman has not faith in the qualifications and ability of a particular medical practitioner. Although they have the right to free treatment very often they select their own medical man and pay him. I am now dealing with the introduction of the panel system, under which, not the representatives, but the railwayman himself, will have the right of selecting a medical man.

The panel system has been examined several times and found undesirable.

It has been turned down, I think, once on the ground of expense, but representations have been made by medical men that a scheme could be so organized that it would not entail any extra expense to the Administration, and that was the question the board desired to be investigated. The hon. member has mentioned a figure of contributions of £75 to £100, but the figures have been taken out by the Administration, and it has been found that the actual position is that the Government contributes out of the total expenditure of £369,000 a sum of no less than £194,000 which is more than half. There is not only direct contribution of £75 to £100. Where you have such a large amount of taxpayers’ money being spent, and cases in which hon. members have come forward and criticized the Government in regard to these appointments, it is necessary that the Government should have some say in regard to the appointments of these medical men. The hon. member has mentioned three cases where we refused to appoint the nominees of the sick fund. Unfortunately I am not at the moment acquainted with the circumstances of the case of Dr. Louw, but I shall deal with the other two cases. In regard to the Petrusburg, which happens to be in my constituency, I can tell the hon. member that very strong representations have been made by the railwaymen there, 93 per cent, of whom are Dutch-speaking. They objected very strongly to the appointment of a unilingual doctor, and I am prepared to defend that.

Why was not the reason given to the fund?

I think the reason was given. I understand the central committee were informed of the reasons why the Railway Board could not appoint their nominee. Here you have a case where the central committee insisted on the appointment of their nominee, who was a unilingual medical man with no better qualifications than a bilingual man, who had to attend a number of railway patients of whom 90 per cent, were unilingual. In the case of Pretoria, the nominee was somebody at Middelburg, while you had a number of men in Pretoria itself. Why could they not nominate one of the Pretoria applicants? In that case Dr. Phillips, who was a Pretoria practitioner, with equal qualifications, was given the preference over the nominee of the board. I am prepared to defend those cases. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) referred to several resolutions adopted by the Nurahs. All these questions are questions of policy, which have been debated in this House on many occasions. I will bring them to the notice of my colleague when he returns. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) raised the question of the differentiation in regard to the payment of cost of living allowance. If larger areas have to be included for arriving at the local allowance payable, he will find it will have the effect of decreasing the amount of local allowance paid to railwaymen in Durban, because you would have to take into consideration the lower rents obtaining in certain outside centres on which the whole cost of living allowance is based. If these are all taken into consideration you will probably get a much lower figure for the entire Durban area, which would give the Durban railway-men who are getting the local allowance, a much lower figure. The hon. member knows this is a very difficult question, full of anomalies, but it exists to-day, and I do not know whether it will be possible for us to get away from it. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has again raised the question of the turning basin at Buffalo Harbour. I am sorry the hon. member does not seem to be prepared to accept the position which my colleague explained to him some time ago, and which I also dealt with during the Budget debate. The position there is that, according to the calculations made by our officers, if a scheme like the hon. member advocates is carried out, it will cost about £147,000. In addition to that, you would have to incur expenditure for deepening the channel over 4,000 feet and, of course, it would be a continual expenditure to keep the channel clean. Under these circumstances, and in view of the financial position, we have not seen our way clear to commit ourselves to the expenditure of such an amount for doing the work which the hon. member advocates. We know the claims put forward, for instance, by Port Elizabeth and many other cases could be mentioned where pressure has been brought to bear upon the administration to spend large amounts of capital expenditure and for financial considerations, if nothing else, this is one of the schemes which we have not been able to commit ourselves to.

*The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) spoke about the amount outstanding for the carriage of stock from, and to the drought stricken areas. I Want again to refer him to what the Government has already done to assist the poor man, and let me say that the railways have also sacrificed a large amount. The rate was extremely low, and in consequence of the concessions very little has been got in, and then in addition this long extension has been granted. Many of the people did not lose the stock which they sent away, and they need not pay immediately. But I think that we have assisted to such an extent that the small amount the railways are asking for their services cannot be written off. This is, however, a matter which the Minister of Railways will have to consider, but I can hold out little hope to the hon. member of his request being granted.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter which seems to me of very great importance. I find that on the 10th September the Administration issued, “for the information and guidance of the servants of the Administration,” special notice No. 1732, which purports to be the whole of the correspondence between the Administration and the sick fund, yet on the 3rd September, 7 days before, they received a reply from the sick fund, criticizing their final finding, to my mind a very important reply, which puts the case of the sick fund in such a way as to make the answer to the Administration’s case irresistible. That was not published, it was not circulated amongst the servants and I think we are entitled to know why. It must have been in the hands of the Administration before this one was published. It seems to me a great pity, because the members of the sick fund have not had the whole of the case before them and that is why, having found since what has happened, many of them are very much upset about the whole matter and they feel that they have not been well-treated. Let me come to the point of the nuances. The Minister says that while the fund contributes £171,000 odd the Administration contributes £196,UU0 odd but when we analyse this we see this to be the position: contribution of 75 per cent., £128,528; a payment g. Administration for services rendered £26,964; amounts recoverable from the Administration in respect of injury on duty cases— surely a liability of the Administration—£8,450. They state this figure represents the Administration’s natural responsibility. We know that.

These very same doctors are paid out of these funds I hey attend to the same cases.

We know that, but it is the Administration’s liability whether there is a sick fund or not. This ’leaves £58,000 Now how IS that made up? Medical attendance of replaying and hospital benefits for European labourers £1 332 £3,500; medical and hospital benefits for Indians and Natives £11,978; medical examination of candidates for employment £3,143. We thus see that for service quite distinct from benefits it is claimed to be payment of the Government share as against the share paid by the sick fund. If we look at these figures we see that the sick fund does pay £100 to the Administration’s £75 and yet the sick fund has not the rights which it should have and which it had before and which The Administration claims they have deprived them of because they, the Administration, pay a far larger contribution than the sick fund. There are other claims made by the Administration. They claim that buildings are provided at the expense of the Administration. This, I am assured, is far from correct as the fund pays the Administration 6 per cent, oh the hire of every building they occupy. 6 per cent, is a jolly good investment for the Administration, seeing that they pay no rates or taxes. Most people would be very glad to have 6 per cent, clear on such an investment It is a higher percentage than the Administration pays for borrowed money. In Cape Town. Durban and Johannesburg, where rents are very high, the fund hires outside property. Then the Administration makes another claim namely that medical officers’ saloons are hauled by the Administration free of charge. The reply in this document which has not been published, is to the effect that there is no such thing as a medical officers’ saloon as this term is understood in the service. The fund pays the Administration an annual rental for the use of a short carriage. Why should the Administration claim they are paying more than the fund is paying? Another claim is that free passes are granted to members. The reply is that these are granted to the staff under the pass and P.T.O. regulations quite irrespective of the sick fund. Why is that claimed as against the fund Right through we find this reply by the sick fond is of very great importance. It should have been published with the other correspondence to give the public and members of the fund full information and then, I think, it would have been clearly seen that the Administration is not doing as much for this fund as the fund itself is doing. The Minister says they make appointments only when they cannot agree with nominations made by the sick fund. I asked the Minister to go through the whole of this correspondence and show me a single instance where the Administration—

How do you know; are you in possession of the whole of the correspondence of the sick fund?

The correspondence was handed to me as a whole.

It is very curious that you have the correspondence.

It may he curious, but when men are not satisfied with the way in which they are treated by the Administration, they have a right to show their correspondence.

Are you prepared to continue when a letter was written giving that information?

The Minister must not put this question to me. All the correspondence, I was told, Was handed to ire. I am told by the sick fund they have not had a single reason.

Do you not accept my assurance?

A reason may very lately have been given—within the last four months. I see the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser), the chairman of the Railways and Harbours Select Committee is here. How much truth is there in the statement that his late partner, when in his lawsuit, he claimed that one of the inducements held out to him was the right choosing medical officers for the sick fund? That makes one feel some further explanation should be given.

I wish to contest the view expressed by the Minister that they have the choice of the medical officer. You are dealing with a sick benefit society appointed by their fellows to represent them and to choose the railway medical officer. Surely these people are in a better position to decide what medical officer it is best to employ in the interests of their families and fellow members than the Minister. I strongly demur to some of the appointments. I agree entirely with those who hold that political influence has entered into this question, and that seems to be of much more concern than the health of the people. The Minister was questioned the other day about two important appointments recently made in Cape Town. He failed entirely to convince us as to the reason for making the appointments, and ignoring the first recommendation of the sick fund. The railway sick fund recommended the appointment of Dr. Connie Sharp as gynaecologist and Dr. Lennox Gordon as surgeon. Pressure was brought to bear on the fund to agree to the nomination of a practitioner who was not a gynaecologist at all, but who had considerable political influence. The sick fund adhered to their first choice, but nominated as alternates Dr. te Water Naudé and Dr. Daneel. The alternates recommended by the sick fund were accepted by the Minister. " These appointments, however, have not given, satisfaction. The whole selection of candidates for appointments to the railway sick fund have failed to give satisfaction.

I suppose there was satisfaction before when the-sick fund made nominations.

There was no report of dissatisfaction. In any case, nomination by the sick fund has this merit, the people are nominated by those whose fellows and Wives are to benefit or to suffer as a result. They are much more likely to make a selection which is determined by reasons of the safety and health of the railway people than are the Minister and Railway Board. The Minister has not given us any reason for the Railway Board assuming authority in this matter. If that was so, why was this change made?

There is a local matter I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister, and I would like to suggest to him that the probability is that some of the accidents are due to the excessive hours that are worked by the men. In this connection, I refer to the men working on the Rissik station. For some reason or other that station has been denominated a way-side station, and the average hours worked by the two men who are deputed to work that station are in the neighbourhood of 120 to 132 per fortnight. The hours the duty committee has laid down at this station are 56 a week and in nearly every case this is exceeded. They were asked to submit a statement showing the list of duties of these two men; average number of trains per day, 50; passenger bookings, including approximately 300 concessions, 6,200; season tickets, 66; parcels forwarded, 791; parcels received, 1,591. In addition to that there is attendance at telephones, reservations of seats, general enquiries, etc., and all the clerical work in connection with the coaching. There are several other stations in the Pretoria suburban division—Pretoria West, where the men work 8 hours, Pretoria Hercules, 9 hours, Pretoria North, which is partially closed for the week-end, 9 hours, and Pretoria Main station 8 hours. At Rissik station it is between 10 and 12 hours a day and that is never closed.

I would like to ask the Minister about the provision of emergency tools on railway trains. I asked the Minister some time ago "whether these emergency tools were formerly carried in every saloon. I see from the evidence at the enquiry lately that on the Cape Government Railways there used to be a set. Of these tools carried in every saloon. From the Minister’s reply, it appears that that is not the case. The Minister says these things are carried in the van. In cases of collision the particular coach or van carrying these things might easily be the one from which the tools cannot be got. My suggestion is that the old Cipe practice should be reverted to as one of practical utility, and that these emergency tools should be carried, not in the van only, but in every single coach. I understand that is the custom on most, if not all, the English railways. I submit that it would be a matter of the" very greatest utility if that system could be Carried out here. I would like to ask the Minister’ what the policy of the Government is in’ regard to the level crossings on which the Commission has sent in its report lately. I find from the report of the Commission that the total cost is not estimated to exceed more than £575,000 of which the recommendation is that the Administration should pay £350,000, the Central Government should pay £103,000 and the Municipalities should contribute the rest. Particularly in regard to the suburban line here, this is really a job which ought to be undertaken by the Government. There is a great necessity for something being done; and in fact the Government will have to do something very soon because of the very great increase in the traffic which will follow electrification of this line.

I will look into the matter referred by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) about the alleged excessive hours worked by railway-men at Rissik Station. As regards the few matters raised by the hon. member for Ronde-bosch (Mr. Close) the General Manager informs me that the oldest hands on the railway do not remember that these tools were carried in the coaches. I understand the instructions are that the tools should be carried in the van, because the van is the most accessible and again there is less risk of theft there than if the tools were carried in the coaches. In regard to the question of level crossings, I dealt with that this afternoon. Of course it is a very important report entailing the expenditure of a large sum of money. I said that I did not quite appreciate the grounds on which the recommendation was made that the central Government should shoulder a portion of the burden. The hon. member will appreciate that this is a matter which the Administration will have to go into very carefully. It is altogether impossible for me to go into this matter. I cannot make a statement as to whether we will be prepared to carry out the recommendations or as to how far we could do so. As regards the sick fund, I do not know that it matters very much what the amount is that the Government actually contributes. The point seems to me to be this that funds are contributed by the Administration towards the expenses of the medical officers and, in view of the fact that we are contributing a large amount and the fact of our responsibility to the taxpayer of the country and the railwaymen, I think the Railway Administration should have the right in such cases as I have referred to here to veto an appointment.

For a good reason.

Yes, and those reasons we have to justify. I do not think even hon. members opposite will question that, I think the hon. member will find, if he inquires, that I am correct in stating that there was a meeting with these gentlemen, when the whole question was discussed and the merits of the various candidates were examined. I can only give the hon. member the information which members of the staff have furnished me with. I am informed by the secretary of the Railway Board that that is so.

The point still remains that in the letter these men complain they have not been given the reason.

I hope my hon. friend will make inquiries at the office of the Administration.

I have other matters to bring up, and I hope the Minister is going to report progress now.

On the motion of Maj. G. B. van Zyl it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee tomorrow.