as chairman, brought up the fourth report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities, as follows—

Your committee would, however, suggest that in view of the inconsistent medical reports placed before your committee as to petitioner’s present physical condition, the Government make the necessary arrangements to have petitioner re-boarded with a view to determining to what extent he is incapacitated as a result of the injury he received on duty in 1914.

Report considered.

I move—

seconded.

Before that report is adopted would I be in order in suggesting to the Government that in view of the character of the telegraphic medical certificate which was received, and which I understand was laid before the select committee, that that be acted upon? I think it would be a most ungenerous thing, if the condition of this man’s health is what the medical report shows it to be, that the Government should wait for further consideration, because, after all, if the condition of Mr. Sheridan’s health is such as I believe it to be, extra remuneration is very necessary immediately, and to wait for further investigation by the Government might defeat the object of what I understand was the first intention of the select committee in increasing his pension to £219 a year. Under the circumstances I would appeal to the Minister of Finance to bring into operation the previous report of the select committee, when, I understand, it was unanimously decided on the medical evidence then laid before the committee, that the amount should be increased. Having regard to the fact that the later telegraphic report showed that Mr. Sheridan’s condition was even more serious than had been laid down in the report on which the committee had granted this extra pension, under the circumstances I think the gracious thing for the Government to do would be to adopt the previous report of the select committee and pay Mr. Sheridan that amount of money. I do not think any member of the public service has ever had a more unfortunate experience than Mr. Sheridan has. He was always, I think, a man of a nervous disposition, but he was able to carry out the duties of head constable in an ordinary country town in an admirable manner. He was then brought to Grahamstown and made to undergo certain horse exercises, one of which was making him mount a horse on the wrong side as it was galloping past him. Mr. Sheridan got a violent fall, from which he has never recovered. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) and I are, I suppose, the only two members who thoroughly know the whole inwardness of this case, and X am perfectly certain that if every hon. member knew it as we know it, there would be no hesitation in accepting the previous report of the select committee that his pension should be increased to £219, not a very large amount to the State, but it is a considerably large amount to a man in Mr. Sheridan’s state of health. It is quite possible, even if this extra pension is granted, that he may not enjoy it for a very long time, and to cause delay for a further investigation would be most unfair and extremely unjust. I would urge the Minister to agree to the increased pension which was recommended.

Would I be in order in moving an amendment to that recommendation?

I am afraid the hon. member will not be entitled to do that, because it will mean extra expenditure.

But the Pensions Committee do not need a Governor-General’s warrant when they make a recommendation.

Yes, but an hon. member moving in the House is not entitled to do that.

I certainly think there has never been a case, in my experience, where a man has been followed with such apparent hostility. I cannot understand it. The Pensions Committee, on page 65, recommend that the pension to Mr. Sheridan be increased from £180 to £219, but after they made their recommendation the doctor, who had given them their certificate, wrote that the man was in a better condition of health. The same doctor has now cabled to the committee that the man’s health has had a serious relapse. Now they not only do not want to give him anything, but they recommend that the whole of the work of the select committee in 1924 be ripped up. They want it now enquired into whether the man received his injury on duty, when that matter was finally settled by the select committee in 1924, who said, “Let him be treated as if he had been retired under section 4.” The select committee now not only want to withhold the increased pension, but they want the whole question of injury on duty to be reviewed, apparently with the object, not of increasing his pension, but decreasing it. This thing happened in 1914, and now the committee want to find out whether he received this injury on duty 14 years ago. I do not know what efforts can be made to board a man in a foreign country. The Treasury has no jursidiction in Belgium, where the man resides. It is a most unfortunate thing. Since the last debate I have also received a cable from Mrs. Sheridan: “Husband’s condition grave.” The doctor has posted his certificate, and it is on its way now. The committee, possibly annoyed with the over whelming majority of the House in referring the matter back, has now made a worse recommendation. I am very gravely disappointed with what the pensions committee has done in this case. A more callous way and method of dealing with a case that deserves justice and mercy I have never heard.

I have never seen Mr. Sheridan and I do not know who he is

Will the hon. member just let me put the question whether there are any other members who still want to speak. If the hon. member replies now the debate will be closed.

I am not at liberty to tell the House what actually occurred in the committee. I held all along there that an injury was being done to Mr. Sheridan. The decision was not unanimous in the first instance, and I think it was by 6 to 2 votes that it was decided that the petition be acceded to. We had a very definite report from the doctor, but subsequently a further certificate from the doctor came along stating that Mr. Sheridan’s condition was better, but it did not indicate to what extent. The committee then reversed their decision. The matter was referred back for further consideration. Since then a cable has come from Belgium which states that the condition of Mr. Sheridan is hopeless and that he has collapsed. The matter of money is very small—£39. The money we have expended in referring it backwards and forwards is much more than poor Sheridan will get eventually. I submit it would be a grave injustice to an individual who is not here on the spot to defend himself. I am convinced from my experience on the committee is that if people give their personal evidence they have fair consideration and measure of success. If Mr. Sheridan had been here there would have been no question as to the amount which he should be given. I do not know whether I am in order, but I should like to move—

I am afraid that would not be in order.

I would appeal to this House not to cause an injustice to an individual who has served the State well, and whose collapse is due to an injury received during his service in this country.

I do think the strictures the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has passed on the Pensions Committee are altogether unfair. He has charged them with bringing in this report because they were annoyed by the big majority with which the House referred back the previous report, and that they were influenced by the hostility of the Treasury to the petitioner. Both these statements are unfair to the committee. Let me give some facts in regard to this petition. In 1917 Mr. Sheridan was retired on the ground of medical unfitness under Section 3 of the Act (owing to suffering from neurasthenia), but not as having received an injury on duty, which is Section 4. He did not then consider he was retired under the wrong section, but thought it hard luck that he was retired in the manner he was. He petitioned Parliament that he should receive a pension as if he had been a sergeant instead of constable when retired. The committee of 1920 granted this petition. In 1921 he came back, and again he did’ not say he was injured on duty, but that now he had been pensioned as if he had been retired as a sergeant he asked that for the past three years of his service he should be paid the difference between that of a head.constable and that of a sergeant; this was again granted. In 1924 he wanted us to say that he was suffering from haemorrhage of the stomach due to being injured on duty. It is only in his third petition that he puts that suggestion to the committee. That is the stumbling block, and we said we were not satisfied. In 1927 he comes with a petition, and is turned down. In 1928 he says that if the committee of 1924 had given him the full pension to which he was entitled he would have got £210. We said we were not able to entertain it on those grounds, and that if a man is medically boarded and is retired because of neurasthenia it is very unfair that we, as a committee, are going to be charged with bad faith when we do not, accept that he was retired on account of haemorrhage of the stomach. We say to the Government, “Let the man be boarded, and let the committee have placed before them plainly what percentage, if any, of the trouble from which he suffers is due to the accident he sustained in 1914.” I think that is a reasonable attitude for the committee to take up, and does not deserve the criticism levelled at it by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street). (Mr. Alexander).

I do not know Mr. Sheridan, and I have never had anything to do with him., Hon. members say that the sum is so very small that we should not make so much fuss about it, but it is a-case of principle, and I want the House to understand that the Select Committee on Pensions gets yearly from 600 to 1,000 applications to go through, and if it is the principle of the House to say that, if the sum is not so big then it must just be granted, then I should like to see what it will cost the country. In granting pensions we must not forget the’ financial capacity of the people. That is the principle we ought to keep in mind, and I ask any sensible man in this House if it was possible for us to act differently on the reports made. Here we have the same Dr. Loonus who sent the first certificate saying the condition of Mr. Sheridan was very bad, and that he considered him a 100 per cent. case. We, the members of the select committee, are not doctors, and after receiving the medical certificate we said that, if it were so we were willing to give the man the higher pension for the rest of his life. The committee was not unanimous, but the majority favoured that view, and as Chairman, I will stand by my committee whether I am in the minority or not. Nor do I want to enter into who was in favour, and who was not. Let me point out to the House that after it was granted the same doctor sent a further certificate withdrawing the first one, and stating that he had not seen the man himself, but that the man’s wife came to him. Now he sends an entirely different report. I want the House to understand that we do not want to do the slightest injustice to the petitioner, and if he deserves the pension he will get it, but let us keep to our usual principles. Let the Government have him examined, and, if the result is according to what hon. members say here, then we can pay him the arrear amount, and in the meantime he still retains the previous pension, because it is not a fact, as the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) seems to think, that we want to take away everything, That is the principle we have worked on, and if the House comes and censures us in this way, then I wonder if a single hon. member will be willing to sit on the Select Committee for Pensions. I repeat that the select committee deals with from 600 to 1,000 petitions every year, and if we merely say that they are small amounts, then the House will find out what they will mount up to.

Motion put and agreed to.

I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior why has the fifth delimitation report, dated the 29th February, not yet been laid on the Table of the House, and when it will be so laid.

It will be laid on the Table to-morrow.

With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, may I move—

In view of the official statements which have been made on the subject from time to time, I do not think the matter of sufficient urgency to be discussed under S.O. 33.

read the following letter—

Control and Audit office, Cape Town, 28th May, 1928.

The Hon. The Speaker, House of Assembly.

Sir,—I have the honour to draw your attention to the statement which the hon. Mr. Madeley is reported to have made in the House on the 24th instant, referring to paragraph 85 on page 49 of my current annual report to Parliament on the accounts of the Union. I would have addressed you before but could not do so, as I wished to refer to the final report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts which dealt with the said paragraph, and that report was only laid on the Table of the House this morning.

Mr. Madeley is reported to have said that my attitude towards himself was largely because he was a Labour Minister and not a South African party Minister. I naturally deeply resent this statement. If my Reports and my actions from year to year during the last ten years, approximately, do not serve as a complete answer to Mr. Madeley’s allegations I must refer you, Sir, to the evidence taken by the Select Committee on Public Accounts this session and recorded in answers 392 to 429 and again in 542. Particularly in my answers to questions 417-418, 426 and 542, I clearly indicated my consistent course of action with regard to the use of Government motor cars by the members of the former and of the present Government. Mr. Madeley could not have been aware of this evidence when he made the statement complained of.

Mr. Madeley also referred to a number of items of motor expenditure by Ministers of the late Government with regard to which he says I raised no objection. In common fairness he should have added that in every single case quoted by him where the charges were not recovered from the Minister, the voucher showed on the face of it that the claim was certified to, by or on behalf of a responsible Minister, that the expenditure had been incurred “on the public service.” Such certificates, in the absence of other factors, are always accepted in audit.

There is another feature of the matter that I wish to represent in connection with the independence of action of the Controller and Auditor-General, which is safeguarded by Section 4 of the Exchequer and Audit Act. If Mr. Madeley is correct in his allegations, I am not fit to occupy the high office which I hold. Rut, if correct, an imputation of this nature should not lightly be made in a casual reference on a side issue in the House, especially when the paragraph of my Report complained of had been referred to a select committee which had not reported at the time and the report of which, now laid before Parliament, does not give any support to his allegations. Under the Act and practice I submit that in order to found a charge against the Auditor-General a formal or substantive motion must be proposed, to be followed up, if necessary, by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, as contemplated by law.

Is it right, therefore, to me and to the independence of my office, that such statements should be made in this manner?

I have the honour to be, sir, Your obedient servant, J. DE V. Roos, Controller and Auditor-General.

The discussion referred to in the letter took place in committee, and I do not propose to deal with anything that took place in committee. In view, however, of the fact that the point is now raised for the first time in the House, I think it advisable to express my views with regard to references to the Controller and Auditor-General in debate. Under the Exchequer and Audit Act the Controller and Auditor-General can only be removed by the Governor-General on an address praying for his removal presented by both Houses of Parliament. I think, therefore, that he should be regarded as one of those persons upon whose conduct, according to the practice of this House, no reflections may be cast and against whom no charge of a personal nature may be made unless the discussion is based on a substantive motion. From the very nature of his duties it stands to reason that the actions and opinions of the Controller and Auditor-General as embodied in his reports’ must continually be open to criticism in this House. Such criticism can, however, take place to the fullest extent without reflections of charges of a personal nature being made. Any such reflections or charges in the course of debate should be regarded as out of order unless they are based on a substantive motion.

Yesterday when the Minister of Mines and Industries endeavoured to get this House to pass a resolution, ratifying the contract between the Government and Messrs. Rosenstrauch and Korbf, certain technical points were raised by hon. members on the other side, that the agreement, before the House, was not the final one, because the Minister had: pointed out that the final agreement was to be amended in accordance with the recommendations and wishes of the Select Committee of Public Accounts. In deference to the representations made from the other side, the Minister of Mines and Industries withdrew the resolution. Since then an amended agreement has been reached and duly signed, and has been laid on the Table of the House to-day, containing all the essential recommendations, in fact, all the recommendations that can be embodied in the agreement, which were made by the Select Committee of Public Accounts. For that reason, and as it is now before the House in its final and proper form, and no exception can therefore be taken to the agreement, I would like to move—

I object.

I will give notice to move that motion to-morrow.

In reference to the ruling you have just given, Mr. Speaker, before the Minister rose to raise this fresh matter, may I ask whether it is not the proper thing under the circumstances, for the Minister who made these statements to withdraw them now.

I am afraid I cannot deal with anything that happened in committee. That is entirely a matter which has passed. The matter was not raised before, and was not referred to me. We cannot deal with it at this stage.

On a point of order, cannot the Minister rise with regard to your ruling?

If the Minister wishes to do so—

I only wish to say that I do not intend to withdraw.

In the course of what I might almost call my conversation with the Minister on this clause, I want to be perfectly clear about it, because it is not clear from the reports. Is it correct that the Transvaal provincial taxpayer will not enjoy that abatement of 20 per cent. on the tax on income imposed by the Provincial Council there?

Unless the Transvaal passes legislation. I have provided for this rebate of 20 per cent. as far as the Union tax is concerned. In the Free State and Natal, the tax is paid as in the Transvaal. It is only in the Cape that the provincial income tax is not levied. If we do not introduce this section, the Transvaal revenues will be reduced. If they want to surrender any of their income tax, they may do so by passing the necessary legislation.

Is it not the fact that the Transvaal decided to raise revenue by means of an income tax? In the Cape we have different taxes. I cannot understand why the Minister should give advice as to what the provincial administrations should do.

I have never done so.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

What is the reason for the reduction?

Will the Minister give some indication whether the State is going to take over the responsibility for the erection of technichal institutes, and not leave that responsibility to the local committees?

That is a question affecting the existing regulations. We only come into the picture when we grant a loan. I understand the Minister of Education is going into the matter to see whether the State is sufficiently safeguarded in the spending of the money in a proper manner. As to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), under existing legislation the commencement of the repayment of these monies must be started within two years and completed within 40 years. The commencing period sometimes starts before the actual loan is completed, and the course laid down in the Act cannot be followed in all cases, so we are adding the previous period of two years on to the 40 years.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

The Minister will appreciate that this makes a considerable financial change to the whole scheme. We had originally to agree to this £2 rate for private owners. Now the Minister brings the water rate for Government ground also down to £2 per morgen, which will make the whole Hartebeestpoort scheme financially a much more hazardous one.

I appreciate the point raised by the right hon. member. It will be appreciated that it is altogether impossible to base the irrigation rate on what that scheme costs. You cannot do it. The only possible way is to decide what is an economic rate on which the settler will be able to make a success. It is no good placing the settlers there and charging a rate based on the cost of the works which they cannot produce. I think it was generally admitted that £2 will be a reasonable charge. That is the rate paid by private owners, and we shall have to be guided in all these matters by what is the rate which will enable the people on the land to make a success of it.

When the Act was passed, this particular rate for private owners was simply given to get them into the scheme. Reports clearly show that at least some of the land at Hartebeestpoort was able to pay a very much heavier rate. They should be able to do very well indeed on some of the land at Hartebeestpoort paying £2 a morgen. I would like the hon. the Minister to say what policy is going to be adopted in connection with Hartebeestpoort, because I see you are taking legal provision to charge only £2 a morgen, or 3.48 pence per thousand cubic feet of water. Does that mean there is a possibility of altering the system under which these irrigation works are run? If you pay per morgen you have to pay whether the reservoir has sufficient water for your requirements or not, but if you pay by vol one of water, you only pay whenever water is there to be distributed.

I cannot inform the right hon. member whether there is any intention to change from one system to the other. What we are doing here is merely to apply the existing legislation applicable to private owners to the settlers there, and as far as I know they pay per morgen of irrigable land. As for the other point, this is a matter which the Department of Lands went into very thoroughly, and I dare say that is what they found to be an economic figure.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I want to move the insertion after the word “irrigation” “or boring for water”, but before doing so would like the Minister to explain the present provision for relief in this regard.

The regulations are in the power of the Government. Boring for water is done under the regulations enforced from time to time. We have reduced the charges considerably, and in cases where the people have not been able to pay my hon. friend has given very reasonable terms. If the amounts are irrecoverable, the Treasury will be able to deal with them under its general rights with regard to irrecoverable advances.

I have in mind the case of men who are doing all they can to meet their obligations.

We meet them very handsomely.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I would ask the Minister whether a similar agreement has been made with regard to magistrates and other officers who have been taken over and employed in South-West, in so far as their pension rights are concerned. I see this clause only applies to teachers. Can the Minister extend this to the other departments on the same basis?

I am not quite sure. I think we dealt with the position of officials some time ago, last year or the year before, but here we are dealing only with teachers taken over from the provincial administrations by the Union Government.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I think my hon. friend is going altogether too far in this clause. I strongly support my hon. friend in regard to money from such sources as diamonds that it should go into the Loan Account, and I think he is quite right in regard to (a), where he claims back any money which has been invested in a diamond mine. I also think he is entitled to the 10 per cent. export duty, but what right has the Treasury to the 15 per cent. of the balance?

That is the same principle which is applicable now to your gold mining leases.

I cannot understand why this should be done.

It is only right, too.

Why?

The position is that my right hon. friend (Gen. Smuts) thought the Government was not doing the right thing in having a State diggings, and it should probably have been leased, and in those cases we would have got income tax. The principle was admitted in regard to State assets which are being exploited by companies, in the Government Areas contracts, for instance. The 15 per cent. is of course a rough method, but it is, broadly speaking, the taxation paid by companies. Practically speaking, you should go and ascertain what the actual profit is, but we did not want to go into all these accounts.

Clause put and agreed to

Remaining clauses and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment, and read a third time.

Before we proceed, I would like to state, for the information of hon. members, the final results of the working of the railways for the past financial year. As hon. members will remember, my colleague, intimated that, as far as could be foreseen then, there would probably be a deficit of something in the neighbourhood of £107,000, and he also indicated the possibility that that amount would probably be considerably reduced. I am glad to say that the results of the last month of the year, March, have been very good. A substantial profit was shown, and instead of the anticipated deficit of £107,000, there will be a surplus of something like £47,000.

I just want to ask the Minister some questions which my constituents have asked me to bring before him. The first is the restoration of the 1923 wage scale. Then a matter which is causing a good deal of discontent is that skilled labourers receive 19s. 4d., while skilled artisans who have been apprenticed are only receiving 18s. 3d. a day. Then there is a question from the Relaying and Transportation Department. They complain that they applied to be allowed to have a draw of a weekly sum, and the system general manager has refused. We understand this is being allowed at the Cape, and why should it not be allowed at Bloemfontein? The men employed in the wagon yard at Bloemfontein are working out in the open all the year round and they complain that in wet weather they have a corresponding loss of pay. Then there is the question of housing. When the present general manager was at Bloemfontein he did a tremendous lot for housing, and was assisted by the town council, but nothing has been done since. The railwaymen want to know what the department is going to do about houses. Another point is piece work on maintenance. The men say they are working in the dark and do not know what they are getting until the job is finished. This does not apply to the mechanical department. The men in the coach shed consider they are not getting a fair share. Then a point that is causing a good deal of discontent is the present method of promoting men to higher capacities. They argue it is very unsatisfactory and that other things being equal, seniority is not being considered. I hope the Minister will do his best to give us some satisfaction. I think he will admit that I very seldom worry the department about internal arrangements in the workshops at Bloemfontein. These questions have been coming up month after month and year after year, and the men in the workshops feel they are not getting a fair deal. I trust the Minister will do what he can to meet these cases.

I do not wish to detain the House long, but just to bring a few points to the notice of the Minister of Railways. Before going further, I want to congratulate him heartily on his surplus of £47,000. We were really expecting a deficit on the railways, and now we have this very pleasant news. Inasmuch as the Minister now has a surplus, I want to make a friendly request to him, and, although he possibly can do nothing himself, he can bring it to the notice of the Minister of Railways. It is to pay the labourers working on the railways a little more, especially those with large families. There are some with families of a wife and eight children, and the pay is very insignificant. Although the people are very grateful, because it is better than nothing, it is very difficult for them to come out. I hope the Minister will sympathetically treat this request. Then I have another question in connection with the labourers. There are people who have been for years in the service, and get annual leave, but during their vacation they have to pay rent, and they find it very difficult, when they get so little, to have to pay rent then. They possibly have friends they visit, and when they come back they still have to pay a considerable sum for the rent. I should be glad if the Minister will see if this cannot be remedied. My second point is in connection with the grain elevators. We have a grain elevator system which, to a certain extent, I must admit, is a very good one, but possibly it is run on a less profitable basis, because I understand that the administration has made a loss in the past on the elevators, and the farmers also have suffered loss. I hope the Minister will give his special attention to this. The administration, I believe, lost £80,000 last year, on the elevators, and indirectly the farmers also lost much because they could not make proper use of the elevators. They have lost approximately £250,000. I shall try to show where the loss comes in. As for the loss of the administration, I am not fully informed, but presumably there is too large a staff. A staff is maintained, while there is work, but when the elevator is full, they have practically nothing to do, with the result that they are paid although there is ho revenue. Possibly the loss also occurs because the mealies sometimes have to be transported from one elevator to the other. The loss suffered by the farmers arises because they have to transport the maize in bags when the elevator is full. When the maize goes to the elevator the farmers have their bags returned, but if it is transported in bags, which now cost about 1s. 1d. each, the farmers lose £250,000 a year. Another cause of the loss by the farmer is that the mealies carried in bags are not so clean as those out of the elevators, and the price in consequence is not so high in their case as for mealies going through the elevators. The latter mealies also sell much better than those in bags, because in the latter there are sometimes bad grains, and they are dirtier, with the result that the price is lower. The farmers are very anxious to co-operate with the administration to make a success of the elevator system. I should like the Minister to go so far as to appoint a commission of enquiry and to have the farmers represented on it to ascertain the best way of improving that system. I cannot see why it is not successful. We do not want to bother the Government now, but I think the Government, during the course of the year, can have a proper enquiry made, and then next year they can submit proposals to the House to improve the system, and we can consider what is the best method from a business point of view, The business point of view is not to let matters slide, but to deal with them, and to see where things are wrong, and to make improvements. The railways are run on business principles, and I hope the Minister will enquire what can be done in this direction.

I think that this committee and the country at large are very much indebted to the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) for the contribution he made yesterday afternoon on the series of accidents which occurred recently. I am sorry it was not received in the way in which it was intended, and, after all, the public are very much concerned and anxious about the serious accidents which have occurred recently in such large numbers. The moderate language of the hon. member should have been received with greater, shall I say, courtesy than that with which it was received. In the report of the Railways and Harbours Board, up to the end of last year, on page 33, a very serious allegation is made in reference to certain track miles of 60 lb. rails, supplied to this country by a Belgian firm, and it prompted me to place a question on the Order Paper asking the Minister for further information with reference to these rails. I asked whether, after delivery, any portion of these rails was found to be defective. The Minister replied that owing to urgency, the earlier deliveries of rails were sent direct to works under construction, so the defects were not noticed. Later shipments, however, were subjected to closer inspection, and a portion was found to be defective. The fact that a large quantity of the rails was at once although I do not mean to say that these rails laid discloses a great deal of negligence, contributed to the series of accidents which the country has recently experienced.

The defective rails were all replaced.

It is estimated that 20 per cent, of the total supplies of these rails did not conform to specification. Certain rails were laid on branch lines before the defects were discovered. I do not know who is to blame for this, but tile department should publish a report at the earliest possible moment showing that everything is being done to safeguard the travelling public. Only this morning I heard a member say he was not going to travel by the fast train, as he was nervous. Somebody is to blame for these accidents, and it should be made impossible for them to recur.

I am obliged to bring a few points to the notice of the Minister, as I feel very strongly about them. I should not do so if I had not raised them last year, and the proper steps had been taken thereon, but in as much as the desired result has not followed the request, I am obliged to raise them again. When the Minister of Railways and Harbours introduced his budget last year, he said that it was thought of building no more branch lines, not only here, but also in other countries, and even of breaking them up, substituting motor services in their stead, where the branch lines did not pay, and that the motor services then could undertake the traffic there. I then asked the Minister if he could not supply, at reasonable tariffs, the necessary motors to the farmers’ associations at Lindley, Steynsrust and Edinville, if they asked for them. He said that he was still engaged on experimenting at other places, and that he could not yet do so. I should be glad to hear from the acting Minister whether, if the farmers’ associations apply to the department this year it will be able to comply with their request. Edinville is about 22 miles away from the main line, and Lindley ten miles, and the main roads are so fenced in that it is difficult to transport produce there, with the result that the production of mealies is handicapped. If the farmers around Edinville produce 4,000 or 5,000 bags of mealies and have to take them for 22 miles to the main line with, say, five or seven wagons each, then every farmer needs an extra wagon to take fodder along the road for the animals. Another point is the platform at Heuningspruit. The people complain very much about it, and we have been asking for a platform for a long time, by way of petitions sent in by the farmers’ associations. When the Minister travels through the Free State again he should kindly observe the conditions there. He will see that very old men and women of great weight, when they leave the train and come to the last step still have to jump 26 inches to reach the ground When I am expecting visitors I prefer to meet them 28 miles away, that is at Kroonstad, than when they come by the express trains to Heuningspruit, and are exposed to the inconvenience. Then I come to the point of housing the railway men at Kroonstad. Kroonstad has a railway village containing 1,700 Europeans, and I can assure the Minister that there are families who have got eight to ten children, and are still living in the corrugated iron huts which the Government took over from the Imperial Government, and which have hardly any backyards. We cannot but admire the mothers who can manage to bring up ten children in that place, but it is an intolerable position. I have repeatedly brought it to the notice of the Minister, and when the Minister of Railways was himself at Kroonstad, and we took him round and saw the conditions, the people expected that he, having seen everything himself,! would have things altered. We are surely obliged to give these people an opportunity of bringing up their children properly and respectably, so that they can be useful sons and daughters of society, and then they must not grow up under such painful conditions. This is the chief element which to-day considerably maintains the European birth rate. Then there is the feeling between the enginemen and the clerial staff. The feeling exists that the best officials, i.e. those who have the easiest and best duties, the clerks, get the best available houses. The engine men have to do their work in all weathers and winds, and in all circumstances, and if in the cold night, and possibly in rain after they leave the warm engines they still have to walk half a mile in the cold and then occupy a defective house, while the clerks leave their offices at 5 o’clock, put on warm overcoats and gloves and go to their homes which are better and close by, then feeling is created. I am almost afraid to say anything about the allowances. Other people, when they go to Kroonstad, see in large lettering, Grand Hotel, Selbourne Hotel, etc., but then I see in capital letters “Local allowance.” I still cannot believe that the cost of living in Johannesburg and Bloemfontein is so much higher that 3s. 6d. and 2s. 6d, respectively are paid there as allowances while at Kroonstad it is only 10d. This was enquired into again last year, but I have reason for believing that the evidence was not fairly considered by the officials, and the people there have cause for complaint. Then they were assured that the overhead bridge would be approved, and that an end would be put to their complaint. It is only a pity that it takes so long. I understand the inspection and survey took place and that it was found that the spot they wished it to be at was not the most suitable, and that another spot was selected, on the north, where the village is extended, and that tenders have already been asked for the iron work. I hope it will now soon be completed. Another great demand by Kroonstad is for a verandah over the station platform. I applied for it last year, and pressed for it for the whole session, but up to the present I have not yet been able to convince the Minister that it is a justifiable demand. I have received telegrams and letters here from the Town Council and the Chamber of Commerce to the effect that the promise was made that Kroonstad would get the verandah at the same time as Bethlehem. Bethlehem had the privilege in recent years of having a very smart representative, and the promise in respect of Bethlehem was fulfilled, but on account of the vacancy at Kroonstad in 1926, it has not yet been fulfilled there. I hope that the request will be given effect to without delay. Kroonstad is a very important district. In 1925-’26 it produced no less than 1,885,000 bags of mealies, and in proportion to its area in square miles, the farmers of the Kroonstad district in 1925-’26 produced more merino wool than any other Free State area, and paid more than £3,000 more in income tax than in any other rural district in the Union. This is a justifiable demand. [Time limit.]

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

I would like to ask the Minister if he could give us the ratio of expenditure to revenue on the South African railways, and also on the Rhodesian railways, as being South African, together with a comparison of the same ratio of expenditure to revenue on the Canadian railways. I would also like to ask him about the goods offices at the foot of Adderley Street, Cape Town. I have not been there myself, but I have been told that the goods offices really are in a shocking condition for the clerks who have to carry on there. Perhaps the Minister would say what they propose to do, if that allegation is true. Then I would like to ask him about Monument Station at the foot of Adderley Street, which, under present conditions, would really be a disgrace to a fourth-rate town in Central America. What are the Government’s proposals in regard to that station? Then there is the question of the Dock Road level crossing. That is a matter that stands rather by itself. Last night I asked the Minister what he proposed to do in regard to the recommendations of the Level Crossings Commission generally, and he replied that the Government at this stage are not prepared to make a statement as to what will be done as a matter of policy. The Dock Road level crossing, however, is in a peculiarly dangerous position. The trains come in at an angle along that road and people going along the Dock Road are exposed to very grave risk, and the Level Crossings Commission has recommended that special attention should be paid to that particular crossing, with a view to something being done now. It is true there is apparently an idea that the railway line would be transferred so as to come on the sea side of the present Dock Road, but the conditions at Dock Road level crossing are most dangerous, and I do hope the Railway Department will be able, at any rate, to make some temporary arrangements. Then I would like to refer also to the matter that was raised yesterday, and that is a commission of inquiry into the accidents that have taken place recently on the railways of this country. The Minister, most unhappily, has chosen to take the remarks made from this side of the House as if they were a party attack.

I did not say so. I specially said I had no exception to take to the remarks made in this House, but outside.

But let us take what is said inside the House. I am surprised and disappointed that the Minister has taken up this attitude because, after all, we are raising this thing, not from any personal motive at all, but purely in the interests of everyone concerned. The Minister has given us statistics to show that, as a matter of fact, these accidents are nothing abnormal. Statistics can prove anything, but I do ask this House to bear in mind the extraordinary character and variety of the accidents that have taken place. I am not speaking as an alarmist, but as the mouthpiece of a large section of the public who are seriously alarmed and disturbed, and we do ask the Minister to allay that feeling by having a general commission of inquiry. One class of persons who seem to be particularly attacked are the engine drivers. The Minister spoke about the human element. I make bold to say that the engine drivers on our railways are as fine a body of men as you could wish to have. It is most disturbing for them to have to think that they should be receiving the blame for a large number of accidents in regard to which they are not the final factor that brings about the accident at all. At Middelburg there was a broken rail, at Hex River there was a broken rail, and we know in regard to the Belgian rails, in spite of the fact that 50 per cent. were condemned, some have been introduced.

Not a single accident was on the Belgian rails.

Not so far. That is the whole point. When we find the evidence given in a certain inquiry was that engineers and platelayers were particularly instructed to look into the state of a certain class of rails, the Tennessee rails, throughout the country, it is a very disturbing thing indeed. I would like to point this out, that the engine driver never gets up to the position of local foreman. It has been put to me that the local foreman knows, from an anatomical point of view, what an engine can do, and repeatedly trouble has arisen where engine drivers have wanted to book off their engines because of a fault, and they have been overridden by the local foremen. In one case, I am told, the Government had to pay £2,000 damages because the engine driver, who knew what his engine could do, was overruled by the foreman, who said what the engine ought to be able to do. A great S many of the suggestions that are made are very unfair to drivers who have endeavoured to avoid what they know are probable accidents by trying to book off their engines, but are overruled by the local foremen. When we have representations such as those made at the meetings in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban by the engine drivers, there is very strong cause for saying that the Government ought to do something to satisfy the public what the real cause of these accidents is. [Time limit.]

I know it is very difficult for the Minister to answer satisfactorily to the cross-benches the question of the low pay of the unskilled man, but I also believe he is in a position to answer as to the cause of the low pay for the unskilled man. In years gone by, the unskilled man’s work was defined on the basis of the native labourer, the result has been that when this Government are employing European labour, the basis of the work being on the basis of the native worker, it is utterly impossible, from an economic point of view, to state that you can increase their wages to what they were in other countries, namely, two thirds of the skilled man’s pay. But is it not a fact by the proper equipment of your railway workshops, and by the development in those workshops of the latest machinery in the production of the commodities we use, the unskilled workmen can become an economic factor, owing to his increased earning capacity, and I appeal to the Minister to give this House some guide as to how much has been spent these last four years on the re-building and equipment of the workshops under the Railway Administration. I believe it is only by that method that the labourers can get a decent wage by which to live a decent life. We know there are a large number of workers on the railway who are only getting 4s. 6d. and 5s. a day. There has been a very slight increase, but what we want is not a small increase on the present basis; what we want is better equipment of the workshops, the latest machinery and the latest methods of producing the commodities, whereby these working men can be in receipt of a decent wage. What I say is a decent wage is not, as in this country, where the labourer is in receipt of one-fifth of the skilled man’s pay, but as in all European countries and in Australia and America, where the unskilled man gets two-thirds of the skilled man’s pay. For instance, in this country it would work out that the unskilled man would be in receipt of 15s. a day, and we realize that when he is in receipt of that wage he will be able to live a civilized life. With better equipment every human being can be an economic factor, therefore, a real citizen of the State.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the question of civilized labour, and what that policy is leading up to in Natal. Over and over again I have heard it stated that the people of Natal resent the Afrikaans-speaking people coming there. I resent that statement. For the past five years Afrikaans-speaking workmen have come there, and they have been in Pietermaritzburg. Not one word of complaint or resentment has been uttered in regard to these people there, because they have been decently housed and living decent lives, just as any other South Africans. What is resented in Natal is that in other parts, such as Durban, these people have to live under the conditions under which they do live. I am sorry the Minister of Labour is not here, but the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) can bear me out, that on the outskirts of Durban Borough, between Overport and Sydenham, these people are living cheek-by-jowl with Indians and natives. Some of them are resorting to illicit liquor selling to supplement their scant wages. We know it is not the fault of these people, who are the victims of circumstances—drought and other circumstances over which they have no control. They are simply country folk who are out of their atmosphere. The people of Natal resent seeing people of our own flesh and blood brought to this degradation. It is a blot upon this country. When we are in the act of building up a South African nation, is this the way to do it?

Would you suggest giving them more wages?

Yes. I cannot understand hon. members on the cross-benches, who are silent on the matter, and yet the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs can advocate a wage of 8s. a day to uncivilized natives, while our own flesh and blood are drawing 5s. 6d. a day, and in hundreds are compelled to live that degraded life. The father may be away at work during the day, and there is no supervision over the family—I leave hon. members to draw on their imagination as to what happens. It is not a difficult matter to put up wood and iron buildings foi’ these people, so that they may not live with Indians and natives. It is degrading to the white man in the eyes of the natives, who preponderate in Natal, that there should be this sort of thing, and it is one of the first things the Government should do, to put a stop to it.

What do you suggest?

I have already suggested something. Put them back on the land. A 5s. 6d. job a day is a blind alley, and leads nowhere.

Will your party support raising their pay?

Certainly; 5s. 6d. a day is a degrading wage.

Your party paid them 3s. 6d. a day.

Instead of members of the cross-benches helping to improve the state of affairs, we hear them sneering and criticizing. We have never had this condition of depravity (as far as these white people are concerned) before, and I think we ought to remedy the matter.

I am very glad to hear the hon. member speaking as he did, and to hear of the change of policy which has come over the South African party, because, when it was in power, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was the law on the railways, we knew that the wages these people were getting was not 5s. 6d., but 3s. 6d. a day.

Not true.

There is a record in the possession of the Cape Town Council from the then Minister of Railways and Harbours (Mr. Jagger) telling them not to pay so much per day.

Not white people; the hon. member is mixing up these with the natives.

What has the hon. member and his class done to put them on the land? They have driven them off the land. These people do not want white labour in Natal, but black and Indian labour—Chinese labour, if they could get it. They are responsible for the labour on the sugar plantations being all Indian. I am glad to be able to en list as a recruit the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) for better housing conditions in Durban. I wish he knew more about it. Personally, I wish to thank the acting Minister and the Railway Board for the extra grant of £50,000 for the housing of these particular men. [Interruption.] It is a pity they did not do it before. If the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) can show me where the Railway Department has given £1,000,000 for the housing of the labourers (under the previous administration), I will be glad. If we take the hon. member’s cry at its true valuation it is election propaganda. A despicable attack has been made on the general manager of railways by the “Natal Mercury,” a South African party paper. On May 11th, in a leading article dealing with the flag question, it says—

The “Natal Mercury” has been markedly hostile to Mr. More, and for it to attack him in this way is nothing more or less than scurrilous, gutter journalism. Can the Minister improve the conditions under which the Conciliation Board does its work? The men are profoundly dissatisfied with the constitution of the board. At present only such subjects as the Railway Administration approves are allowed to go before the board. Then there are too many classes of men represented on the board. The Minister should investigate the conditions regarding conciliation boards for the artizan, clerical, mechanical and running sections. This would bring about better conditions. What the men think are legitimate grievances should be allowed to be placed on the agenda, and thus insure more harmonious working. There is undoubtedly unrest on the railways, and a feeling of fear has been aroused by the press propaganda in connection with accidents. There are a number of matters we have pressed for for years. For instance, there is still another instalment of the 8-hours’ day to come, and, now there is a surplus, I hope that it will come. It has been promised us, and I hope that it will be given us not later than next year. The labourers should receive better pay, and should be supplied with rainproof overcoats. We want the Minister to bring the service into line with the railway services of other civilized countries.

I want to return to the question of compensation paid by the Administration for goods on consignment lost in transit. The disappearance of goods is very much on the increase. Returns supplied by the department in reply to a question I put this session and recorded in Hansard show that the amount paid for claims for loss of goods was: In 1924-’25 £57,500; in 1925-’26. £64,900; in 1926-’27, £77,000; in 1927-’28, £86,800. It is quite apparent that pilfering is on the increase. Is anything being done to counteract the depredations of thieves? Although in 1924-’25 compensation was paid to the amount of only £57,000, there were 841 prosecutions for theft, but in 1927-’28, when £86,000 were paid as compensation, there were only 781 prosecutions, which rather points to a falling off in the efficiency of the police and watchmen. There is undoubtedly a weak spot somewhere. The claims section of the railways is costing the country something like £300,000 a year. In view of the alarming increase that has taken place in the amount of claims paid in 1928 as compared with 1924, I hope the Minister will give us some information as to whether the administration intends to adopt other methods in addition to the action which has been taken in the past—precautions which will safeguard goods in transit.

In view of the speech of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), who urged the appointment of a commission of enquiry into the broken rails, we must apparently infer that he means that during past years no enquiry has been made. I think it is surely generally known that, immediately after the discovery of the splitting of the ails, a special enquiry took place.

We want a general enquiry.

One of our cleverest young engineers, Dr. Abbott, was appointed, but the hon. members always want somebody imported. I think that we have had enough experience with engineers and officials from abroad, and it was of such a kind that we can with the utmost confidence give the preference to the opinion of our own engineers. I think there is also a misunderstanding to a certain extent about the kind of rails which usually split. The enquiry has shown that it is not only rails of one kind. In Natal the Tennessee rails are more used than in any other part of the country, and they are laid mostly round curves, and this of course partly explains that more rails split there than in other places. Dr. Abbott’s answer to the question whether the Tennessee rails split more, and in the main have split, was, that the Tennessee rails possibly show defects a little sooner, but that striking defects have been noticed in the English rails. I think therefore that the House and the public ought not to get the idea that the matter of the split rails has not been properly investigated. The enquiry was made by one of the most capable railway engineers, who was specially appointed for the purpose by the previous general manager, and the result is that the splitting of rails is not confined to one class, but that it occurs principally in the Tennessee rails. But the actual question I wanted to put is in connection with the renewal fund. We vote about £1,500,000 for it every year, and the surplus of the fund to-day is £3,000,000, and we are asked this year once more to vote £1,600,000. I do not object, but I feel that the position from year to year is becoming more unscientific and unsatisfactory, and I know that a commission of inquiry has been appointed to ascertain how much ought to be contributed from year to year on a scientific basis. Now I should like to know from the Minister whether the commission has reported yet. The position is unsatisfactory because the idea of the renewal fund is to keep the existing assets in such a perfect state of working capacity that the capital assets are not reduced, but the fund was established in 1923-’24, and the capital value has been increased from about £132,000,000 to £154,000,000, while we are still continuing to contribute more or less the same amount to the renewal fund. If the commission has not yet reported I want to know if the Minister can tell us anything about it.

I have listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) with regard to the necessity for what he calls an independent board of inquiry. There is a good deal to be said for the idea that there should be some form of inquiry. The difficulty, as far as I can see, is as to what sort of board or committee you can set up. The present practice is to appoint a board of enquiry in all cases of serious accident. One assumes that the persons you select for those inquiries are competent, and if you set up another board of inquiry it is difficult to see how you can vary the constitution of it, because you have not got an unlimited number of experts in the country. In my opinion the hon. member for Harbour did not put up a very strong case for an independent board of inquiry. I want to suggest that advantage should he taken of the fact that we have a new general manager of railways. With all due respect to the late general manager, he had different ideas, perhaps, from the new general manager. The Minister yesterday stressed the fact that the present officials of the railway were highly competent, and were most qualified to find out the cause of these accidents. I want the new general manager to take the staff entirely into his confidence in regard to this matter, and try to find out if there is a general cause of the accidents. I do not believe there is a general cause for these various accidents. Take the recent meetings which have been held in various parts of the country. At Salt River recently the Enginemen’s Society held their annual meeting. I was not present. Suggestions were made by practical men who work on the railways, and serious allegations were made by some of those present. No names were given in the reports, but I would like those men to make those statements in front of the general manager. I would suggest to the Minister— and I believe the general manager would be entirely agreeable—that he calls as early as possible a conference of what I would describe as representative railwaymen both on the technical and practical sides. You could have each grade represented. I would have that conference consist of working railwaymen and, in addition, would suggest that the various unions be invited to send their representatives there. I would like the Minister to regard it in this sense. You have a new general manager with new ideas, as it were, of running your railways, and you hold what I would call a parliament of railwaymen to go into the question of the general conduct and working of the railways. Such a gathering of railwaymen, both on the technical and the practical sides, would, in my opinion, be the best form of inquiry at the present time. I want to stress this point, that you should invite representatives from your staff organizations to be present, because they are, in their way, representative men, and they are mainly old railwaymen. The objection about paid officials does not cut any ice, as far as I am concerned. I certainly would not bar any staff organization from sending representatives, and I want to urge that point of view on the Minister. The best form of inquiry, in my opinion, at the present time, when public opinion has been aroused in the matter, mainly owing to attacks made in the South African party press and other persons trying to make political capital out of these accidents would be to hold such a conference. One can say in regard to one individual who has been working up the case against the Pact Government that, if these accidents had happened under a South African party Government, this agitation would not have taken place. Hon. members of the Opposition have a very great regard for Sir William Hoy. What did he say about these allegations? I would refer hon. members to page 26 of the general manager’s report where, after speaking of the accidents which have occurred, he says—

Those are very pregnant words. These attacks have been made in the South African party press for political purposes and this is the sort of thing that makes people say, and rightly so, that “politics is a dirty game.” To put an end to all this unfair exploitation of accidents by party press agitators, I suggest that a conference be held as early as possible, and that it should consist of genuine working railwaymen, on both the technical and practical sides, together with representatives of the staff organizations, and then we shall get down to hard facts and find out if there is a general cause for these accidents. I do not believe there is a general cause, but by a conference of this kind we shall get to the root of the matter, and, in any case, a valuable exchange of opinions will take place, and many useful suggestions may be made.

I would like to reply to the large number of questions which have been raised so far in the debate, and supply information to hon. members. I can assure the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) that the Administration is very much alive to the necessity for obtaining the cooperation of railwaymen with a view to reducing these accidents and to finding out where improvements can be made in the running of the railways to obviate these accidents. The general manager of railways has got the matter in hand. Various measures have been introduced, and he is specially interested in this question of taking steps to obtain as much as possible the co-operation of the staff.

What about a special conference?

That will be considered. The general manager has been taking various steps already to obtain this cooperation as much as possible. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has raised several questions. The first was the 1923 wage scales. This also is a big question, like the hours of duty and the remuneration of labourers, which has been debated very often in the House, and in regard to which my colleague has laid down the policy of the Government. As far as these scales are concerned, unfortunately, it is impossible for us to depart from those scales which were laid down. In regard to the differentiation, there were only two courses open at the time when the cut was made. One was to reduce the existing rates and make them apply to the men in the service and to new entrants in the service, but the Government chose the other course, and said that it should not apply to those already in the service, but the new scales should apply to new entrants. The only other course is to level up. That is impossible. Then the hon. member raised the question of piece work, especially in regard to maintenance. That is a matter which is being gone into by an experienced engineer, Mr. Brady. An inquiry is being made into the general question of piece work. This refers to maintenance. The hon. member raised the question of weekly pay, and he referred to the differentiation in treatment between railwaymen in Bloemfontein and railwaymen in Cape Town. The question of weekly pay has been gone into several times, but ther are difficulties, and we have not been able to accept the system generally. The, system in Cape Town has been in operation here since before union, and we have not been able to make it of general application, and it is impossible, therefore, to extend this arrangement to Bloemfontein. Then he raised the question of the men employed in the yard working in the open. There is a wagon shop going up in Bloemfontein now, and as soon as that is completed it will obviate the complaint.

And the housing?

There are several other members who have raised the question of housing, and I just want to point out what the Administration is doing in that connection. Every year, of course, we have a building programme going on. Last year there were 163 houses authorized at a cost of £115,000; the previous year 101 houses at a cost of £12,000 and in 1925, 283 houses at a cost of £191,000. This year we are again making provision, and as far as the complaint is concerned of the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) in regard to Durban, he will see that we are making special provision in the capital estimates of £40,000. Up to the present the Administration has considered that it is generally the duty of the local authorities. They are all very keen to have large railway undertakings and to have staffs allocated to their various towns, and up to the present we have thought that they might have shown a little willingness to meet the Administration by providing housing accommodation. In regard to Bloemfontein, that is one of the municipalities where they have, to a very large extent, realized their responsibility. Bloemfontein has met us very handsomely in regard to making provision for the housing of the staff. My hon. friend says why this large sum for Natal? There can be no doubt these unfortunate people are not too welcome in this delightful city of Durban. The municipality has refused to do anything, and, under these circumstances, if we did not want to see these conditions, to which my hon. friend has taken exception, continued, the only course was for the department to make provision for a large sum of money at Durban. Under the general housing loans a large amount was provided in the past by the central Government. The previous Government made provision, and we have been continuing that policy, and this year again a large amount is made available as loans to local authorities to provide housing for the citizens. Some municipalities have availed themselves of that, but others are not very anxious to do so. Therefore, we had to deal especially with the case at Durban.

Not Durban—it is the railway servants.

Yes, the railway servants at Durban, to be more correct. Then the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has asked me a question in regard to the ratio of expenditure to earnings. The figures are, for the South African railways 80.62, and the Canadian National railway 82.50. I am sorry I cannot give the ratio for the Rhodesian railways, but, as I said before, I do not think a comparison with our railways would be a very fair one. The conditions there are very different. They are operated by a company. For instance, they can employ coloured people, which would probably not be allowed in this country, as a matter of policy. It would not have been fair to compare the working costs of, say, the N.C.C.R. with the Union railways. It would not have been a fair comparison at all. Then he has raised the question of the condition of the Monument Station. I do not know whether he was here last night when we discussed the position of the Sea Point line. I pointed out the whole question of the future of the Sea Point line will have to be very carefully considered, and naturally the decision arrived at will, of course, also affect what steps we are going to take at Monument Station.

Except this, that Monument Station is also the station for the docks.

I have not considered it from that point of view, but its future will be affected by what decision we come to with regard to the Sea Point line. In regard to the Dock Road crossing, I have already informed my hon. friend what the position is in regard to the general question of level crossings, but as far as the Dock Road crossing is concerned, I understand there are two men continually on duty there. The provision which exists at present for safeguarding the public is, according to the general manager, quite satisfactory.

The commission recommended a special investigation by the City Engineer and the Railway Engineer.

In regard to Monument Station being the station for the docks, I understand very few trains run now-a-days. The service is by means of ’buses. Then there is the question of the goods offices at Cape Town station. The hon. member knows there are several schemes now initiated by the department in connection with the working of trains at Cape Town. There is the Woltemade avoiding line, and there is the question of the big scheme of improvements in regard to shifting the running sheds. Eventually, I believe the customs houses will disappear, and if that takes place, the question raised by the hon. member will receive attention. We cannot rush into the matter until the other schemes have made progress. They are all part of the general improvement scheme affecting Cape Town. In the brown book we voted a large sum of money in connection with these various undertakings. It is so, that we have extensive improvements going on in connection with the Cape Town station, and if they all come to fruition the matter my hon. friend refers to will also receive attention. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) dealt with the question of pilfering on the trains. He pointed out what he considers a very large increase in this connection, but if he takes into consideration the traffic, the amount of goods handled generally, he will find there is actually a decrease in the claims. The figures are: In 1921-’22, paid out for compensation, £68,343, or .328 per cent. compared with the revenue; in 1926-’27, £55,000, or .230 per cent. compared with the revenue. That is a substantial decrease. I understand that the pilferages are mainly of liquor, clothing, etc., from trucks, and the hon. member will appreciate that all you can do is to strengthen your police staffs where these occur to any large extent, and that, of course, is being done. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) dealt with the question of conciliation boards, and several other hon. members made references to a certain amount of dissatisfaction that exists in regard to the functioning of these boards. Unfortunately, the difficulty is that demands are sometimes made that matters of general policy should be put on the agenda, but that was never the intention, and the trouble has mainly arisen in regard to the practice of the Minister in confining the questions which these boards should decide to conditions of administration and of work; but not general policy. The hon. member has referred to the desirability of providing labourers with overcoats, and said that was done with our artizans; artizans only sometimes get overalls, when they work in the open, and not overcoats. He dealt with an unfortunate article which appeared in a certain newspaper, an attack on the general manager, in connection with certain happenings at the opening of the M’tubatuba-Pongola line, when the complaint was made that the Union Jack was not displayed. It was unfortunate that the general manager should have been subjected to the attack to which the hon. member referred. I may say that Mr. More was not responsible for the arrangements. Until a line is taken over, the construction engineer is in charge, and Mr. More had nothing to do with it until after the official opening. The strictures on him were altogether undesirable, and I think every hon. member will regret it.

Who was responsible then?

I do not know the facts of the ease. The responsibility for the arrangements at the opening rested with the construction engineer. I do not know what, his name is. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) raised the question of the defective Belgian rails, and criticized the action of the administration in putting some of them down without what he considered adequate inspection. Unfortunately the inspection overseas broke down; that question has been dealt with in the House; and suitable steps were taken with the people responsible for that overseas. In South Africa the rails were required at once, and not minutely inspected. It was only afterwards that the defects were actually discovered. The responsibility in the first place lay with the inspecting engineers overseas.

And on this side?

The hon. member will appreciate the circumstances under which the first lot of rails were put into the track. Reference has been made by several hon. members to the wages of civilized labourers. I can only say that the rise announced by my colleague during the budget debate was as far as we can go at present. Under present conditions we cannot go any further.

*Then the hon. member for Kroonstad (Lt.-Col. Terreblanche) brought forward various matters. He asked how far the experiment had gone in connection with the heavy traffic, and especially the carriage of maize by motor lorry. As stated on a former occasion, we are making experiments in Natal, but we have not yet advanced sufficiently to say how far they will be a success and how far the roads will be able to stand the heavy traffic. Then the hon. member spoke about the Kroonstad platform arid the Heuningspruit passenger platform. The hon. member stated the position at Kroon-stad, and the difficulties of the place, and we all agree that it is an important railway junction, but there are many applications for capital expenditure, and we cannot grant all. The hon. member knows that certain expenditure at Kroonstad has been provided for this year, such as the bridge, and it will not be possible to make further provision. Then the hon. member spoke of the differences between the loan votes in various places. Well, grants are based on enquiries made from time to time by a commission, which decides the figure, and we pay according to the finding of the commission, and in the case of Kroonstad the amount paid agreed with what the commission laid down. With regard to the housing question, I have already pointed out what we are doing, and that we have put an amount of £150,000 on the estimates for this purpose. We are trying to do as much as possible in connection with the housing question. The hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. de Wet) also mentioned various matters. Firstly, higher wages for railway labourers. I have dealt with that. Then the rent of railway men when they are on leave. The hon. member knows that these people have various privileges, and the further one urged by the hon. member can possibly be considered when opportunity occurs. Then the hon. member again referred to the grain elevators. As he knows, a deputation came to the railway administration and I told it that the matter must await the return of the Minister of Railways. The question as to whether it is possible to make a greater success of the grain elevator system can then be gone into. There is a considerable difference of opinion on this matter between the farmers and the administration. The question is whether it is in the interests of the railway admanistration to build more elevators. Hitherto the result has not been very favourable, but the farmers say that if there were more room in the elevators the elevators would pay better. There is a difference of opinion on that point between the administration and the farmers. The point which I think ought to be consulted on by the administration and the farmers is whether more favourable results in connection with the elevators are possible, so that they may pay better. Then the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) asked questions in connection with the report of the Committee on the Renewal Fund. The position is that the report has just come in and is being printed. When it has been published we shall have to consider whether it is possible to find a more satisfactory basis in connection with our contributions to the renewal fund.

I wish to refer to the administration’s policy regarding men who are involved in accidents, upon which they are quite rightly suspended until an inquiry is held. In one case a man was indicted for culpable homicide and was acquitted by a judge and jury, being absolved from any blame. It is a gross injustice that he should have to for-feit all pay during the time he was not employed. I believe very strongly that these men, if found not guilty by the courts, should be reimbursed for the time they have lost over the whole of that period of their suspension, which is due to the law’s delays.

And also if they are found guilty by a departmental inquiry?

If a departmental inquiry finds them guilty of a technical breach of the regulations, then there is an arguable point as to payment for time lost pending such enquiry. But my point is that if a man is fined or otherwise punished by the department, and is subsequently re-employed at his job, and is kept suspended pending the result of trial in the courts, he should he paid for the time lost, through no fault of his own, if he is acquitted on the charge preferred against him. It is not fair that a man who is suspended for four months owing to delay in his case coming on for trial, should forfeit his pay for that period if the court finds him not guilty.

I think there is a misunderstanding.

Suppose there is a departmental inquiry and a man is found guilty of a breach of the regulations; let him be punished, but it is not fair to keep him out of employment for four extra months. If he is re-employed by the department, there is an admission that he is an efficient worker. Suppose a departmental inquiry occupies a week and a man is subjected to disciplinary action from that date he should he paid in full if he is acquitted, and if his further suspension Is caused by the law’s delays. Four months pay to an engine driver or foreman means a very great deal indeed.

This was a very burning question a few years ago, and a select committee dealt with it when the Railways and Harbours Service Act was before the House. After long discussions with the men’s organizations, Section 16 of that Act was passed; it is a compromise. Broadly speaking, the position is that if a man is suspended and found not guilty by the departmental inquiry and went back to his work, he is paid for the period of his suspension. In certain circumstances it is in the discretion of the management if any part of the time he was suspended to be paid for. If any alteration is made in this practice, it will require legislation.

Will you consider it?

No, the Act was passed only in 1925. I do not think there is the least chance of Parliament going back on what it decided three years ago.

I wish to compliment the Minister on the acumen and accuracy with which he has handled the many points brought to his notice and given clear and concise replies. It is, however, a lapse of memory on his part that he has overlooked a reply to one very important point—the turning basin at East London.

I replied to that last night.

The Minister has mentioned Durban, and I understood him to blame Durban for its alleged unsympathetic attitude towards European railway labourers sent there by the Government. In view of the offensive terms used by the Minister of Labour and the more offensive terms employed by “Die Burger” which recently published a paragraph headed,”Charity in Natal” it is only fair that the point of view of Durban should be expressed. “Die Barger” stated that the charity of Durban towards the people who suffered from the drought was of such a character that it contributed less to these suffering people than it did to the building of a dog kennel.

Do not ask me to justify what any newspaper said, please.

I am coming to what the Minister himself said, but in the meantime, I want to show how unfair these criticisms are. One group of companies alone, in Durban, subscribed £350 to the Cape Drought Relief hand. On the question of housing, the whole attitude of Durban has been that the Government is to blame in sending people there on a wage on which they cannot subsist. How can Durban be expected to house these people? I suppose the acting Minister of Railways would have them housed free, because certainly they have not money to pay for their housing, and tile whole attitude of Durban is summed up in this statement, which I will read from a leading Durban paper—

Any householder of Durban will tell you that not an hour passes but these needy people come to the door begging in one form or another.

Railwaymen?

The wives or children of these unfortunate European labourers. That is the position—

The paper goes on to say that impoverished people from other provinces will be sent to Durban to work at those wages. The hon. the Minister of Labour takes that up and says the people of Natal call these people white kaffirs. That is the sort of distortion that goes on. The hon. the Minister of Labour, when in opposition, reproached a former Government for employing that very class of people at what he called kaffir wages. We might just as well accuse the hon. Minister of having described these people as kaffirs, because he himself said they were receiving kaffir wages. It is a case of absolutely wilful distortion. I wish to refer to the Minister’s claim made last night that the permanent way was in a satisfactory condition. I will draw his attention to the Auditor-General’s report on the South African Railways and Harbours accounts, in which he dwells on the certificate given by the chief civil engineer on the permanent way. He points out that prior to the year 1925-’26 the certificate of the chief civil engineer showed that the permanent way had been maintained in good working condition for the standard of traffic authorized. The present certificate omits the words “good” and merely records that the permanent way has been maintained in working condition. That is a very significant difference. We have comments by the Auditor-General on that circumstance. [Extract read.] What has the responsible Minister done to remedy this state of affairs, viz., to maintain a higher standard of maintenance? He had bought Belgian rails, 25 per cent. of which were so bad that the cost of those rails had to be recovered from the contractors, and we find that through defective inspection a considerable portion of those rails were actually laid down on our lines and are on our lines now. The permanent way that required a higher standard of maintenance was given a standard lower than we had ever applied to any of our lines. I come to the question of accidents. The Minister quoted figures about petty derailments week by week which almost bemused the House last night. Let us deal with facts. The railway law of 1916 lays down that only the more serious class of accident shall be reported to the Minister of Justice. [Time limit.]

I would like to ask the Minister to tell us what his policy is in regard to the sleeper question. Studying the Auditor-General’s report, it is very illuminating that steel sleepers are costing 9s. 6d. each, Rhodesian teak sleepers 9s. 8d. and our South African yellowwood sleepers 11s. 4d., but the life of the steel sleeper is 35 years, while that of the Union creosoted sleeper is 12 to 15 years. Taking it on the basis of a life of 30 years, the cost of the steel sleeper is 9s. 6d., the Rhodesian teak sleeper 22s. 7d., and the South African yellowwood sleeper, treated with creosote, 26s. 5d. It is not only the aspect of life; it is the wood that we are using. We cannot, of course, criticize Rhodesia for selling her teak, that is a concern of her own, but we are exhausting the supply of some of the finest timber we have got in the country, and that is yellowwood. This timber is far too good to be used for sleepers, and we are wasting a very fine wood by using yellowwood for this purpose. To come back to the Rhodesian sleepers, I find that, although over a 30 years’ life, the Rhodesian teak sleeper costs 22s. 7d. against 9s. 6d. for the steel sleeper, there has just been placed an order for £429,000 worth of Rhodesian teak sleepers. Where is the economy in running our railways? Apparently we can save £300 a mile by using the steel sleeper as against the Rhodesian sleeper. I do not know what the department is aiming at in this question. I think that when we are trying to get the best service out of our railways, coupled with the best value, the public is entitled to a very clear statement as to the policy of the Government as far as sleepers in the future are concerned. I hold that wooden sleepers are uneconomical, and that you are wasting one of the best assets of this country when you cut up our yellowwood into sleepers.

I was dealing with the number of accidents that had been reported, and I want to make a difference between the accidents of a minor character (those “off again and on again” accidents that our friend Mr. Finnigan sent a telegram about) and deal with the serious class of accidents which the law requires the administration to report to the Minister of Justice with a view to his appointing a more or less independent Board of Enquiry to hold its proceedings in public. The Act lays down four different kinds of accidents to be reported to the Minister of Justice: (a) Any accident attended with loss of human life, or with grievous bodily harm or serious injury to property; (b) any collision of trains in which one train is carrying passengers; (c) any derailment of a train carrying passengers or any part of such train; and (d) any other accident that has caused or is likely to cause loss of human life, grievous bodily harm or serious injury to property. The Minister’s return, laid upon the Table to-day, a copy of which I have only now got with considerable difficulty, states that in the first half year of this Government’s term of office 215 of these accidents (serious accidents) occurred. Only four public enquiries were held, although it is contemplated that the Minister shall appoint a board of enquiry to look into these accidents in public.

What do you call serious accidents?

Serious accidents are those which fall within the category of Section 68 of the Act of 1916, from which I have just quoted the four different classes of serious accidents that have to be reported.

What is your point?

My point is that 215 of these were reported by the Minister to the Minister of Justice, and only four public enquiries were appointed by the Minister of Justice in those cases.

I thought we were discussing the policy of the Minister of Railways?

I am endeavouring to throw some light on the figures that the Minister gave us last night, which tended to confuse the position, and do not make clear to us all the serious accidents that happened during the period of the Government’s term of office.

Yes, derailments.

I am not dealing merely with derailments. I am dealing with serious accidents as compared with the “off again and on again” type of thing that the Minister was talking about last night. In the full year of their office, 1925, 529 accidents happened of a serious kind, and only six of these were publicly enquired into.

That shows what you consider serious.

I do not think the public will be in any doubt as to what is “serious,” because it has been clearly laid down in the section I have quoted. Every one of the accidents in this class contains a latent danger to the safety of the public. In the following year, 1926, there were 558 accidents, and only 11 public enquiries were held.

I might point out to the hon. member that the question of enquiries does not come under this vote. The question of accidents does.

I merely wish to emphasize, incidentally, how little the safety of the public is being considered by the Government. I am not blaming the Railway Administration here so much; the Railway Administration, that is the officials of the railway, perform their duty in reporting these accidents, but the policy of the Government, for which the Minister is in part responsible, is not to enquire publicly into these accidents to any large extent. I shall not dwell on that.

That is the policy of the Minister of Justice, the question of inquiries. Accidents the hon. member may discuss, but not the question of enquiries.

I accept your ruling entirely. I was saying the number of accidents for the year 1925 was 529. For the year 1926 no figures are given. For 1927 we have 610.

Give us the figures for 1922, 1923 and 1924.

I have not been supplied with those figures. I want to deal with the figure for the four months of the present year, 201 accidents of a serious kind, making in all 2,113 accidents of a serious kind under the regime of this Government, and only 43 public enquiries. Combined with this question of accidents is the question of the permanent way. Members on the other side have from time to time suggested that during the regime of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) the railway was starved of maintenance.

So it was.

The hon. member speaks out of the wealth of his ignorance on this subject. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) up to the time he relinquished office, was protected by the certificate of the chief civil engineer, which, as pointed out by the Auditor-General, was a completely satisfactory one. It certified the good working order of the permanent way. That condition of affairs continued for the year 1924-’25, and it was only in 1925-’26 when this Government had practically been one-and-a-half years in office that the civil engineer was unable to give the certificate in the customary wording, and felt called upon to say why a higher standard of maintenance was required. When did the purchase of these defective rails take place? The largest quantity of defective rails has been bought by this Government. There is the question of the weight of the engines and the whole question of the capability of the narrow gauge (3 ft. 6 ins.) to carry the increased heavy traffic and fast traffic which has been built up of recent years on our lines. Sufficient consideration has not been given to these subjects. I challenge the Minister to deny that as a matter of fact there is not even a weigh-bridge by which the weight of the engines can be measured. At the present moment the administration is not even provided with a weighbridge capable of weighing the heavier engines we are using. There is no doubt when we come to the purchasing of engines of the 187.7 ton type we are inviting danger by using engines of that type upon our lines. Practical railway-men have told me in every quarter that the line is knocked about by heavy engines of that kind, and that nobody can be responsible for the results. [Time limit.]

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the conditions under which the staff have to work at Worcester station. At Worcester station the room is very limited, and the staff have the greatest difficulty in handling the trains and the traffic. The traffic is increasing year by year and the accommodation has been limited for years past. I know you have great difficulty there in providing more accommodation, and I see that on this year’s estimates a sum has been provided to provide increased accommodation. I hope the Minister will set about it as early as possible before you come to the busy time. During the fruit season the traffic is increased enormously there, and it is very difficult to handle the traffic. Not only that, but the railway is losing some of the traffic on account of the hold up of some fruit at Worcester station. Fruit is being carried by motor lorry instead of by the trains, although the rate by train is cheaper. In regard to housing accommodation at Worcester, the railway department has the ground and it would be very easy for them to provide additional houses there for their employees, and it is very badly required. I want to refer to a few other matters which, though small, are important. First, the rates charged on hydrochloric acid, which is used in fruit culture. To send it from Firgrove to Orchards costs you 4s. 3d. per 100 lbs., or 1s. 6¼d. per gallon for that short distance, a distance of only about 124 miles. Hydrochloric acid is used to cleanse your pears and apples. How the people in the Transvaal and Free State are going to do their cleansing if the stuff is to be carried at this very high rate, I do not know. It is carried at rate No. 1, where as you have other chemicals required in farming operations carried at rate No. 7 and lower. Then there is another matter of rates which is altogether an anomaly. You have wine presses and grape crushers. These do not travel as agricultural implements at rate No. 7, but are carried at rate No. 3 as wine presses. My hon. friend says, “Why not carry them by lorry?” Some of these things are being taken by lorry to-day, entirely on account of the high rate charged by rail, and the railway is losing traffic. This anomaly has never been provided for. On account of the high rates you have lorry competition, and you will never have dydro-chloric acid carried any distance inland if it is carried at this high rate; and it will be carried by lorry. The matter has been represented earlier to the department, with what result I have not heard. With regard to the station accommodation at Worcester, since the money has been voted, I hope the Minister will proceed with it at an early date, before we get our fruit season.

I want to deal with the question of the policy of secrecy which the Minister or Railways and Harbours has adopted towards inquiries in this House relating to railway matters. Nobody can read what was said in reply to questions asked of the Minister this session without coming to the very definite conclusion that a deliberate policy of concealment has been followed by the Minister, who is absent to-day. There is a distinct tendency to withhold information which it is the right of this House to have, and I hope the Minister will realize it will serve no good purpose to follow that policy in future. There is no doubt discipline has entirely broken down—

Can you prove it?

I am speaking of the European labourers and the difficulty of handling that class of labour. I venture to say that almost every man who has had anything to do with that labour will tell you the same story—it is not worth his while to take action against any one of these men, because he knows it will achieve nothing, even if it does not establish the impression that he is hostile to’the white labourer. Reports will be sent to the Minister. It is a commonplace, if not a standing, joke, that if one of these labourers is thwarted in any way he threatens to write to “Charlie” at once. The control, discipline and management of these labourers leaves a great deal to be desired. In some of these accidents there have no doubt been features that have been very undesirable. In the Milnedale disaster, I am informed, the lighting of the lamps depended on a native who lived two miles away from the halt, and the lamps themselves were not second-hand, but third-hand. There were great gaps in the panes, through which gusts of wind would blow out any flame that was burning. That the lamps were not lit on the night when the accident took place was only to be expected. There were other features that were not brought out at the trial, because the prosecution was withdrawn, and this is rather regrettable, because the attention of the public would have been more drawn to the want of attention and control in the matters I have mentioned. I understood the Minister rather to doubt whether people from overseas would be able to assist us in any inquiry, and to suggest that they would not make for improvement. But in matters of discipline there are no better examples than on the railways of the older countries where intensive methodical training takes place. Any railwayman in Great Britain will tell you that the Board of Trade there stands over any lapse on the part of a railwayman, who goes in dread of any neglect of duty. There is no doubt that the Minister could reinforce our control over discipline if he had the benefit of the advice of those who have gone through the mill as British railway-men. There is no doubt that the best disciplinarians on the railways to-day are men who were trained in that school. I hope the Minister will realize I am not making this suggestion in an antagonistic spirit, but in a desire to be helpful.

After what you have just said?

What have I just said?

I will tell the hon. member what he has just said.

Throughout the whole of this criticism I have quoted chapter and verse, and every figure I have used is a figure supplied to me in the proper manner in public documents.

I will tell the hon. member what he has just said. In dealing with discipline on the railways, he made the deliberate statement that discipline is slack because any senior officer dares not to enforce discipline, because as soon as he looks askance at one of these men, the latter writes to “Charlie”.

I did not say senior officer.

What difference does it make whether it is a senior officer or an officer? Any action they would take would be interfered with. That is the accusation made on many occasions, and I have no hesitation in saying here and now that that is an irresponsible statement, and if that is made, I do not care by whom, I characterize it as a lie.

The hon. Minister must withdraw that.

I will withdraw that; but I say that it is a statement that cannot be substantiated, and it is not true.

The Minister has withdrawn it.

It is these irresponsible statements that create the feeling we have. What authority has the hon. member for making such a statement that the policy is to interfere with the actions of officers when they try to enforce discipline?

Have an independent inquiry and you will see.

I don’t want an independent inquiry. The hon. member has not a tittle of evidence. He could not call a superior officer to give evidence.

If they did, they would be hounded out of the service.

I am not prepared to waste time over this.

Slanderous!

The hon. member has made accusations in regard to the report of the chief civil engineer. That report, in so far as there is a qualification, refers only to the branch lines. I will read the report on this question from, the general manager and the evidence he gave before, the select committee when he was questioned on the permanent way. It is a fact that in 1921-’22 and the following year, the department asked for certain sums to be spent on the permanent way under the regime of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), and the money was not provided. Let me give the sums that were actually spent on the permanent way during the years we have been in office to see whether we have starved this sort of work. What does the hon. member complain of? Have we not provided the necessary funds for keeping the permanent way in order? The amounts spent were—1922-’23, £1,840,000; 1923-’24, £1,708,000; 1924-’25. £1,676,000; 1925-’26. £1,964,000; 1926-’27, £1,969,000; 1927-’28, £2,400,000. There is no reason why the permanent way should not be in good condition.

I simply referred to the certificate of the engineer which refers to all lines.

The certificate does not purport to deal with the main lines.

There is not a word about branch lines in that certificate.

The qualifications in the last certificate referred to branch lines only. The general manager states that—

Every engine can be weighed in the workshops.

Have you a weigh-bridge for engines?

We have machines in the workshops on which the weight of all engines can be tested.

Since when?

With re gard to the cost of maintenance, re-laying, resleepering, re-ballasting and strengthening the track itself are continually going on, and runs into many thousands, the cost being charged to renewal fund, capital fund, etc. Added to the ordinary maintenance costs the expenditure on this work per mile during 1928 will be no less than 40 per cent. than the actual cost in 1924-’25. and the expenditure on ballasting will be even greater. That is the evidence of the general manager. What grounds has the hon. member for making wild statements?

What ground has the chief engineer for making these statements?

Who is to blame for that? Surely the blame must rest on the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), who, during bad years, did not provide the funds asked for by the Administration. In spite of that, our permanent way and track are in good condition.

He never ordered 25 per cent. of bad rails.

Has a single accident been caused through a defective Belgian rail?

I am not in a position to say.

Let us have a commission of inquiry.

These Belgian rails have been put into only a few branch lines. Are we supposed to have these accidents because the Administration has been purchasing other than British stock? But we have admitted that we were unfortunate in getting a particular consignment of rails and that might have happened whether they came from England or Belgium.

Tennessee rails?

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) bought American, Belgian and German rails. There is no evidence that Tennessee rails—

We had a report about another rail that broke. Did the hon. member inquire what kind of rail that was?

I would like to know.

In 1923 the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) bought 140 miles of rails in England, 50 miles in Germany, 70 miles in France, and 31 miles in Belgium. We have had evidence that on electrification of Natal defects developed in all the various kinds of rails. Unfortunately, it is quite true, that in the Tennessee rails the proportion was greater, and that resulted in the instructions that were given that they were to be specially watched. The hon. member dealt with the training of railwaymen. We have a scheme in operation to-day which will result in the better training of railwaymen. It is a scheme which we never had before, and under which, in future, we will be able to have properly trained railwaymen, because they have to start as probationers from the very bottom. Formerly, for many positions, you went into the street and got a man and made him a railway man. That will not happen under the scheme which has been put into operation in the last few years. With regard to the points raised by the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), I have dealt with the housing, and in regard to the station we have made provision for it, and we will see how we can expedite the work. The case of the wine press is under consideration now, and we are also looking into the question of the rate on hydrochloric acid. We charge the rate applicable to chemicals.

It is a great pity the Minister cannot reply to any criticism without trying to show that his predecessors did something very much worse. He was unfair this afternoon in reading the report of the general manager, which he knows is not before the House. That report was handed into the select committee not more than a fortnight ago, but the report of the select committee was handed into the House only this morning.

I did not know that this report was handed to the select committee. I knew similar evidence had been given, but I was quoting from a report made to me, and I said so.

I accept that. The Minister repeated what he said the other day that the ex-Minister of Railways, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) refused to spend money on the permanent way when asked for it. The other day when the hon. member challenged the Minister the Minister said: “Oh yes, we also do it. More is asked for than is ever given.” It is rather unfair to repeat that again to-day. When the Minister of Railways was here last session I put before him a case which happened at a Cape Town docks and he promised to go into it. A certain man had been employed there for 17 years, and now suddenly is called upon to take out letters of naturalization. He applied for these and produces a certificate that he was in the Merchant Service, where he had a certificate of naturalization, but the Department of the Interior here refuses that certificate now, and, under the Act, this man has to leave the service after 17 years. The Minister promised me last session to go into the matter. I had not heard anything further, but I hear now that in June this man has to leave the service. I think that is a matter which the Minister should take into serious consideration.

How old is he?

He is a man of about 45 at the outside. Every man under whom he has worked at the docks gives him a very high character, and begs that his case be considered. I have a case of a railway guard who joined the service in 1903, resigned, owing to illness, in 1909, and rejoined in 1911. His break was condoned for pension purposes by the Railway Administration in 1926. He is also granted long-service leave. The point I want to raise is that when the Act was under consideration we objected to the powers given to the Railway Administration then, because we said it would be interpreted as taking away the powers given to the Pensions Committee. Here is a case in point. The Railway Administration has refused to give long-service increment. I wish to ask the Minister to go into the matter. We asked the Minister of Railways, when he was here, to consider the cases of several men who had been on active service, men who had been on strike, and other men in similar conditions who had breaks in their service, which was condoned, but the men have found that now they receive no promotion. They are far below the status at which they were when they broke their service.

What is the reason?

That is what I would like to know. They have been to the war, or on strike, and when they were reinstated they found they had lost their status. Take one case where a man was a signalman, Grade 1, at 11s. a day, plus 4s. local allowance. He was re-engaged on December 15th as a signalman learner, at 6s. 6d. a day. After a period of two years and 227 days, in addition to a period in German South-West Africa, making over four years, he finds he is below those men who remained in the service while he was away. His break was condoned. We raised this question a little while ago, and the Minister promised to let us have a report. We have had a report from him which means nothing. In the meantime these men are left, and they ask the Minister to go into the matter very carefully and see that those men who have been reinstated, and who should have been reinstated fully, receive the privileges to which they were entitled.

The Minister stated that the certificate from which I had quoted referred to branch lines. I am particular about my statements, and I want to make it perfectly clear that the phraseology of this certificate, which is signed by a professional man who is particularly jealous of his honour and his good name, does not bear the interpretation which the Minister has put upon it. He says—

He certifies that the various lines of the S.A.R.—I emphasize the various lines, not the branch lines—have been maintained for the standard of traffic in working condition, not in good working condition. He goes on to say—

It is obvious that the chief civil engineer himself intended to refer to the various lines of the South African Railways and in that inclusive term gave this certificate. This certificate stands above any sort of doubt. The Minister seems to have taken great offence against any suggestion that discipline is lacking. We have never yet had an explanation of the circumstances in which an engine was taken out of the loco shed at Volksrust and taken many miles over the line and returned again after considerably damaging rolling stock without anybody having observed this gentleman. Nobody saw him. The engine and this mysterious gentleman travelled many miles and the discipline was such in that centre that from that day to this, in spite of police and railway enquiries, no clue has been obtained to this joyrider.

What has that got to do with discipline?

It has everything to do with discipline. Does the Minister suggest that such a thing could happen in a well-disciplined loco shed and no report be made to those in authority?

Can you prove that?

The Minister himself admitted it. In reply to a question of mine in the House, he even specified the number of trucks that had been damaged. We have a further incident that took place at Kimberley, where a European labourer got on to a locomotive and damaged certain rolling stock in the goods yard. He was certainly dealt with and severely fined, but the very occurrence of these things proves a serious want of discipline.

The statement of the hon. member I took strong exception to was that if there was slackness the Minister interfered, when discipline was enforced.

I would say again that that feeling is a most widespread one, and I am speaking from personal knowledge and personal information from a large number of railwaymen that that feeling is existent to this day and railwaymen would rather not report any incident or indiscipline.

That is not a fair statement.

This goes to the root of the whole matter and shows there is indiscipline. In regard to the money spent on the permanent way, I do not deny the Minister’s figures, but the very fact that year after year the chief civil engineer is unable to certify that the permanent way is in good working order is proof that that money is not achieving the result which we hope for, that is, that we arrive back at the state of affairs that existed prior to 1925 and 1926 and 1927 where the chief civil engineer could conscientiously give a certificate that the line was in good working order. That is the point I am making. The thing that matters is whether the line is in good working order. As regards the weighbridge, the railways have not a weigh bridge able to weigh the engines that we have got-on the track to-day. I make that statement and challenge anyone to disprove it.

I put a certain question to the Minister, but I think he was too busy looking through his papers to give a suitable reply to my hen. friend here (Mr. Marwick) to answer me. That is the question of sleepers.

The whole matter has been enquired into by the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, and the report will be before the House. We will go very carefully into the whole question.

I think it is a great pity that only in this House, but in the press controlled select committees earlier. This is the second year that we have had these important matters considered by a committee upstairs, and we have not had a chance of considering them. I do ask that in future we should get these select committee reports before the end of the session.

There is no doubt that not only in this House, but in the press controlled by the South African party, they attribute the accidents to the goods which have been purchased outside Great Britain. I think it would allay the feeling a great deal if the Minister would give us the figures, not of goods ordered, because the late Minister of Railways placed orders in Great Britain, but unfortunately the goods were manufactured in other countries. I would like the Minister to give us the figures and the value of the goods produced in foreign countries for use on the railways of this country during the years 1921. 1922 and 1923, and also the figures giving the value of the goods which the late Government purchased from Great Britain during those years, also the figures and the value of the goods ordered and produced in foreign countries and also in Great Britain for the years 1925, 1926 and 1927. I am sure that if we had these figures at our disposal it would, once and for all, eliminate that feeling and that insidious idea propagated throughout the country that this Government is purchasing inferior goods from foreign countries while they, while in power, ordered the best material, no flaws in it whatsoever, and that they purchased them from Great Britain, also produced in Great Britain.

There is just one matter I want to draw the Minister’s attention to, and probably it is typical of many cases. At a railway refreshment room a man is employed as a manager and his wife as cook. The wages of the man amounts to £15 10s., and the wife gets £2 10s. Deductions are made for super and sick funds and the conjoint income amounts to £16 15s. per month. We might think this quite a fair wage for a man and his wife when we consider they have free housing accommodation and food, but unfortunately for them, but fortunately for the country, they have three children, and the department calls upon tins man to pay £3 per month for each of the two children under 12, and £6 per month for the one child over 12, so after deducting that their conjoint income amounts to £4 15s., and out of that he has to buy clothing and pay school fees, and buy his Union loan certificates and find means for recreation, etc. It is quite clear the man cannot do that. The result is you have the man and his wife having their meals at the station and the three children having their meals alone at the cottage nearby. What sort of family life is that? What is the department out for? Do they want to put a premium on dishonesty or are they encouraging childless marriages? If you take into consideration the fact that you have at Salt River some European labourers with up to ten children, and they get the magnificent sum of £7 a month out of which the man must pay rent and buy food and clothing, it seems strange that the department should charge for food and food alone, £6 a month for a child over 12. I hope the Minister will endeavour to make some better arrangements for men placed in that position. There is just one other matter. At Fouriesburg, in the Free State, there is a woman who runs a refreshment stall. I believe it is put up for tender, and she was the successful tenderer. She pays rent to the catering department and she has to have a licence for tea and also a general dealer’s licence for tobacco, fruit, etc. She has to work from. 6 in the morning till 7.30 at night. Evidently she has been pleasing the public and giving them value for their money, so much so that the catering inspector reports as follows to the department—

What an admission! I suppose they are doing their utmost to take away the widow’s mite and the passengers are being informed they must not go to the concession stall, but must wait for the dining car. To my mind that is not playing the game. It is a pity that catering inspectors cannot be more usefully employed. It does seem an extraordinary position to adopt, first of all to call for tenders and as soon as the tenderer pleases the public and makes it a success, all the resources of this great department are brought to bear to eliminate a poor widow who is working from 6 in the morning till 7.30 at night. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the Mozambique convention. I see Article 10 establishes the position in regard to import traffic arranged before Union. The 50 per cent. guarantee on volume traffic was considered too liberal, but the Article 14 in the new agreement agrees in principle to the advisory board transferring exports from Union ports to Lourenco Marques. We are showing a preference for a foreign port at the expense of Union ports, and I hope it will not act detrimentally to Union trade.

I want to again refer to the subject of the low pay of the European labourers, and I want to ask the Minister whether he could not, out of his unexpected surplus, provide sufficient money for a larger increase than 3d. per day. I am sure no member of this House would object to a larger increase in pay being given to these labourers. I am referring to what are called civilized labourers. In urban centres especially it is impossible for a married man to live on the present rate of pay, and seeing the Minister has come forward with a substantial surplus, there could be no better way of using a portion of that surplus. The increase should be at least 6d. or 1s a day. It is not a big thing, but it means a great deal to these men, and far more to them than many hon. members realize. The Minister is not a hard, but a careful, man, and even the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), I am certain, would not object to a portion of the unexpected surplus being used for that purpose.

I want to know what the administration is going to do to increase the storage capacity of the goods shed at Ladysmith. At the request of the business people of Ladysmith, I inspected the goods shed, and saw goods stacked out in the open because of the congested state of the sheds. When I raised the matter last year, the Minister, I understood, gave an assurance that provision had been made in the estimates for increasing its capacity. I am speaking from memory; I am sorry I have not Hansard here. I cannot find it in the estimates. The goods sheds there are 40 years behind the times. I understand goods are being damaged during the rainy weather, owing to being stacked in the open.

I understand that when my hon. friend goes back to Ladysmith he will find a great change there. New trans-shipping plant has been completed which will increase the facilities there. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has mentioned several cases, and one of them a guard with broken service. The long service increment is only after 17 years’ continuous service. If the hon. member will give me particulars, I will make enquiries. The same refers to the case raised by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates). The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) has made an eloquent appeal again on behalf of the civilized labourers, and wants me, out of the unexpected surpluses, as he calls it, to give increased pay, or rather to give 6d. at once instead of over a period of two years, as suggested by the Minister of Railways and Harbours. Well, I am sorry I cannot gladden the heart of the hon. member, and it is a matter my colleague will have to go into. It is an important matter of policy, and I am merely carrying on in his absence. My colleague will be back in a few days, and he can deal with the policy of civilized labour.

As I have succeeded in my object of obtaining the time in which to state my case, I will withdraw my amendment.

The hon. member will realize that that was not a proper course to adopt then, because there should be a bona fide challenge on a matter of policy.

Surely no one can question my bona fides in the matters which I brought up—no matter what I say now.

I took the hon. member at his word.

With the leave of the Committee, I should also like to withdraw my amendment.

With leave of Committee, both amendments withdrawn.

Head, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Head 2, “Maintenance of Permanent Way,” £3,101,239,

This is where we indulge in parish pump affairs, and I would like to call the Minister’s attention to conditions at Pietermaritzburg station. We had to wait for a change of Government for a railway station befitting our importance as a city, and the citizens are very much indebted to the Government and the administration for the additional facilities provided there; but the island platform is still without a roof, and during the rainy season much inconvenience is caused. Let the work be taken in hand, and complete what is generally recognised to be a vast improvement for the convenience of the travelling public in this part of Natal.

I would like to know what my hon. friend is going to do in connection with the qualified certificate of the civil engineer for the permanent way. [Certificates read.] As regards working conditions, he does not put in the word “good”. What steps is my hon. friend going to take?

I presume my hon. friend was not here just now, when I dealt with it very fully. The opinion of the general manager is very definite that our permanent way was probably never better that it is at present, This condition, to which the hon. member has referred, refers to certain branch lines. We are continuing to spend as much as this country can afford on continually improving the track. There is nothing wrong—unless my hon. friend agrees to my coming to Parliament and having an extra two million. No, there is nothing much wrong, and we are doing as much as the country can afford, to improve and strengthen the track.

We have heard a lot about the vast amount spent on the permanent way, but last year we saved £128,000 and this year £137,000 on permanent way.

Actually we have spent more from capital account.

Then the fact should have been noted.

Probably the explanation is that to the figures mentioned must be added the sums spent from time to time from the renewals fund.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 3, “Maintenance of Rolling Stock”, £4,193,482,

With regard to locomotives there was an increase in wages of £15,000 and a decrease in material of £26,000, but in the case of electric engines there was an increase in wages of £2,600 and an increase of material over £8,000, notwithstanding the fact that these electric units are all new stock. On the other hand, for the motor vehicles there was an increase of only £36. The electric engines are costing a larger amount than the other stock.

That is so. The increase is due to the electric units having to receive attention.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 4, “Running Expenses”, £5,099,320, put and agreed to.

Head 5, “Traffic Expenses”, £4,392,990, put and agreed to.

Head 6, “Superannuation”, £537,540, put and agreed to.

Head 7, “Cartage Service”, £443,800, put and agreed to.

On Head 8, “Depreciation of Permanent Way and Works and Rolling Stock”, £1,500,000.

When I had charge of the department I fixed the contribution to depreciation at 7 per cent. of the total receipts. My successor in office considered that too small and he made the amount £1,500,000, at which it still stands, although since then there has been a very considerable extension of the railways. Had he followed my suggestion the amount for depreciation would have been £1,770,000. The percentage basis is far sounder than having a fixed sum, for when the receipts increase you allow for a larger depreciation than you do when the railway receipts are falling.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 9, “Catering Service”, £666,662,

The catering staff is the worst paid and the worst treated in the whole of the railway service. Many married men employed on the trains and in Parliament buildings as stewards receive only £9 10s. a month, from which have to be deducted 10s. for superannuation and 14s. for sick fund per month.

Put the Wages Board on to the department.

If I had the power I would. The catering department is a mystery department. Its overhead charges seem to be extremely high. It must be topheavy, for it has officials drawing very large salaries indeed, but at the bottom there are respectable married men receiving miserable pittances. When people hear of inadequate pay given to the stewards, they say “Oh, but look at the tips they get.” That, in my opinion, is a very unfair remark, and for any employer to make his employees depend on tips for a living is a degrading and unsatisfactory policy. We should go on the principle of paying a living wage to everyone connected with the public services of this country.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 10, “Bookstalls and Advertising”, £191,561, put and agreed to.

Head 11, “Bedding Equipment of Trains”, £59,747, put and agreed to.

Head 12, “Grain Elevators”, £287,635, put and agreed to.

Head 13, “Road Motor Services”, £284,639, put and agreed to.

On Head 13/1, “Tourist Traffic,” £26,950,

I should like to ask if this tourist traffic department is paying, because my information is that it does not pay.

This is altogether a new branch, and I do not think it quite fair now to ask whether it pays. I think it is so, but we find it is very necessary for the development of our railways that we should give attention to this sort of work in connection with the encouragement of tourist traffic.

What is the arrangement come to with regard to the hotel and living accommodation mentioned here? Do we get a round sum?

Inclusive tickets are issued, and we pay all hotel expenses, exclusive of the catering we supply on the train.

There are private individuals who can do this better than the railway department. Cooks and the Polytechnic are quite prepared to conduct this business, and it is far better to leave it to these people who are adepts at the business than for the department to take it on. I do not think you will make it pay eventually.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 14, “Interest on Capital”, £5,122,962, put and agreed to.

Head 15, “Interest on Superannuation and other Funds”, £610,710, put and agreed to.

Head 16, “Charges in respect of Lines Leased”, £13,500, put and agreed to.

On Head 17, “Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £127,220,

I should like some information with regard to these office expenses of the High Commissioner in London. They are £15,000, and last year the amount was only £6,000.

Our contribution is £40,000, and 1 per cent. is charged on the material shipped. Of course, if there is less material shipped, there is a larger amount debited to this head.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 18, “Contribution to Betterment Fund”, £250,000, put and agreed to.

Head 19, “Contribution to reduce deficiency in Pension and Superannuation Funds”, £287,000, put and agreed to.

Head 19/1, “Contribution towards reduction on Interest-bearing Capital”, £250,000, put and agreed to.

Head 20 (Harbours), “Maintenance and Upkeep”, £578,350, put and agreed to.

Head 21, “Traffic Working”, £63,321, put and agreed to.

Head 22, “General Charges”, £25,158, put and agreed to.

Head 23, “Superannuation”, £24,360, put and agreed to.

Head 24, “Depreciation”, £86,890, put and agreed to.

Head 25, “Lighthouses, Beacons and Signal Stations”, £51,342, put and agreed to.

Head 26, “Interest on Capital”, £547,243, put and agreed to.

Head 27, “Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £21,400, put and agreed to.

Head 28, “Steamships”, £172,625, put and agreed to.

Head 29, “Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £50, put and agreed to.

Estimates of Expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, Supplementary Estimates, Estimates of Expenditure from Railway and Harbour Funds, Estimates on Capital and Betterment Works, South African Railways and Harbours, and Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds (including Defence Endowment Account) to be reported without amendment.

House Resumed:

reported that the committee had agreed to the Estimates of Expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Supplementary Estimates, the Estimates of Expenditure from Railway and Harbour Funds, the Estimates on Capital and Betterment Works, South African Railways, and the Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds (including the Defence Endowment Account) all without amendment.

Report considered and adopted, and two Bills brought up.

Before the Clerk reads the fourth order, perhaps the Minister, as I understand it is intended, if possible, to finish this week, will now move the adjournment.

There are a few small Bills which my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior would, I believe, like to have proceeded with at this stage. I think it is the general desire rather to have a holiday to-morrow afternoon.

It is no good passing a Bill now. It can never go through all its stages.

There are a few small Bills. I am afraid my hon. friend will have to consider that point.

I move—

Though it is very late in the session, I hope this little measure will still pass both Houses of Parliament, because I really think that it supplies a need which has been pointed out, I believe, especially by hon. members on the other side of the House. There are only a few provisions in this little Bill. The first has to do with registration. I should explain that, as the Electoral Act now stands, nobody can be registered as a voter at a biennial registration of voters unless at the commencement of the registration, which must take place not later than the 31st January, he has actually been resident in that particular electoral division for three months. Quite a number of voters who change their residence are not actually resident when the bi-ennial registration commences there for three months, so that they cannot be registered. They retain their vote on the particular voters’ roll where they are registered until the 1st August, when the new roll comes into operation, but they cannot get on to any particular voters’ roll before the next supplementary registration, and that is only on October, so quite a number of persons who would otherwise have been entitled to or be registered are disfranchised between the 1st August and about the last day of October.

Where do you remedy that?

Under this Bill it is remedied in this way, that I propose now that all these people who are actually resident in a particular electoral division when the biennial registration begins, let us say, on the 31st January, may become registered in that particular division if, later on during the course of the registration, they send in a claim to be registered, and they can at the time when they send in their claim prove that they have then been resident for three months in that particular division. Let me just explain that if the House passes this particular clause, then everyone who has been actually resident, say, on the 31st January, when the biennial registration begins, in that particular division can come on to the roll. Because, if you take the minimum periods which are laid down under the existing law for the various steps that have to be taken during the course of the biennial registration, 112 days at least must elapse between the commencement of the biennial registration and the latest day when claims for registration can be sent in, that is, three months and 22 days. Say, for instance, the biennial registration begins on the 31st January. A person in that constituency has been resident there actually only for one day. Then the latest day when he can send in a claim to become registered, if you take the minimum period, would be the 23rd May, and then he would have been resident in that particular constituency for 3 months and 22 days. It is easier for him in that way to prove that he has complied with the law. This. I think, is a necessary provision and it will obviate two things. The first is that a considerable number of persons en titled to be registered are disenfranchised between the 1st of August and the end of October, and the other is that too great a burden would be thrown every two years on the supplementary registration of that particular year in October. Another provision in this small Bill deals with persons who are sent by the Government oversea on Government business and who are resident there possibly for a number of years. I am referring more particularly to persons in the Government service in the High Commissioner’s office in London or in the offices of our Trades Commissioners in various countries. In the old law of 1918, we made provision for soldiers who naturally were absent from the country for a considerable period during the great war. Now we find that persons are being sent by the Government out of the country who, in some cases, have been members of this House, or who have been members of provincial councils, and after their term of office expires and they return to this country, they do not comply with the provision in the Cape Province, for instance, that they must have been actually resident here for a whole year before they can become enfranchised, and so these people, not through their own fault, not in their own interest, but because they have been sent oversea in the service of the country, are actually penalized.

How about where a man goes: abroad for a private firm?

That is his own private business, but I do not think we ought to penalize a person who is sent out of the country on Government service, and the Bill here provides for their cases in a similar way to that in which we provide in the Act of 1918 for soldiers who were on Government service and absent from the country. Now there is another small provision, and that is to meet the case of minors who become of age during the course of a registration, and contrary to the intention of the law cannot get on to the roll unless they are actually 21 years and 3 months, or more. As the law stands now, no one is qualified to be registered unless at the commencement of the biennial registration he is entitled to be qualified. He has actually been qualified for three months. When the registration commences, say on the 31st January, everyone who claims to be registered must then have been actually entitled to be registered for the previous three months. Now, say, for instance, on the 31st January, or the day before the biennial registration commences, a minor becomes a major, he cannot get on to the roll, quite contrary to the intention of the law, simply because he was not entitled to be registered for the-three months previous. We propose to rectify this here. There is just one small matter again; that is the last, and that is with regard to the placing of advertisements in connection with the holding of the revision court. As the law stands now, the holding of the revision court in any particular district, must be advertised in newspapers circulating in that division, not later than seven days before the court is actually held, but not earlier than a fortnight before. It is very difficult to see why this provision of the maximum period is there at all. It seems to be unnecessary; but administratively it is very difficult, and almost impossible to carry out the system in connection with our very extensive constituencies. It is easy enough when all these revision courts are being held on the same day. You can just place one advertisement in all the newspapers; but it is not always the same day, and if this provision stands as in the existing law it not only means that the Act is very difficult to carry out, but means a good deal of expense to the country. What we propose here is to delete the provision with regard to the fourteen days; and the “seven days,” of course, remains. These are the provisions of this small Bill; as I say, they all seem to be very necessary; and I hope, without much difficulty, the Bill will be passed by this House.

There are some points in the Bill which the Minister’s speech has not made clear. There is no explanation why sub-sections (a) and (b) of Clause 2 are introduced, for, as far as I can see, they are exactly the same as the clauses in the original Act.

That is so.

Then why are they introduced as amendments? Sub-section (c) provides that if you lodge a claim for registration as a voter, you must actually reside in the division for at least three months immediately preceding the lodging of the claim, but if you do not lodge a claim, residence is not essential. I suggest that at the biennial registration every qualified voter should be put on the register whether he has been in the division three months or not. The idea of not allowing anyone to be placed on the supplementary roll without three months’ prior residence will, to a very great extent, prevent people registering in different constituencies merely for electoral purposes. Under the Bill, however, men will be kept off the roll who are really entitled to be registered. For instance, the boundary of the new electoral division of Sea Point is Pine Road. Those living on the Sea Point side of that road will automatically be placed on the Sea Point register, but persons residing on the opposite side of the road will have to live there for three months longer before they can be re-registered in the Central division. At the supplementary registration no man should be placed on the roll unless he has lived in the constituency for three months. With regard to Sub-clause 10, line 41 and onwards, the man who has gone overseas is going to be in a better position in regard to registration than those who have remained here but who happened to have changed their residences just prior to registration. That seems to me another matter which should be gone into carefully. Men who go overseas are going to be allowed to register in the division in which they were at the time they left, but the man who lives here and never leaves the country may just change his residence before registration, and because he has not resided for three months in a particular place, he cannot be registered. That would be obviated if the Minister accepted my suggestion, which would not affect the question of stopping men from registering in order to strengthen a particular constituency at a particular time.

I move—

seconded.

No, I do not at all see the reason why the debate should be adjourned. There is no intention not to sit to-night. There is a good deal of work still on the order paper which we can do. All I can tell the hon. members is that, if this small Bill does not become law this session, it cannot be applied to the coming election next year. The registration ends on the 31st January as the last date, and it is not probable that we can put the Bill on the statute book before the 31st January if we let it stand over. I therefore think that we ought to go on with it now.

I withdraw the motion. In 1926 Act No. 11, section 45, was passed as an amendment to section 91 of the Principal Act of 1918, and it would be interesting to hear from the hon. the Minister how that section has worked, namely, the amendment of section 91 of the Principal Act, because I propose at a later stage of this Bill to move an amendment, namely, the deletion of section 45. Under section 91 of the Principal Act it it provided with regard to bills, placards, etc., that they should bear the printer’s and publisher’s names. The reason I propose to discuss this matter today is because of a recent prosecution at Port-Elizabeth. A telegram was sent in the Three Rivers election by a prominent gentleman on this side of the House wishing the candidate success. That telegram was published in the “Eastern Province Herald,” and by reason of the editor not having affixed his name at the foot thereof he was prosecuted in Port Elizabeth and convicted by the magistrate, and on appeal, because of that little technical offence the conviction was upheld by the Eastern districts court.

Business suspended at 5 p.m. and resumed at 8.8. p.m.

The Electoral Act, No. 12 of 1918, was amended in certain respects by the Electoral Act, No. 11 of 1926. I was referring more particularly to section 45 of the Act of 1926, which purported to amend section 91 of the Act of 1918. Under the Act of 1918 it is laid down that every bill, placard, poster, pamphlet, etc., having reference to an election shall bear upon the face thereof the name and address of the printer and publisher.

Section 45 of the Act of 1926 purported to enlarge the provisions of section 91 of the Act of 1918. Among other things it enacted under a new sub-section (3) that every report, letter, article, bill, placard, circular or other printed matter, etc., which, on the face of it is intended or calculated to affect the result of an election and which is inserted in any newspaper shall bear at the foot thereof the full name and address of the person by whom such article was written or produced. You will notice the difference between section 91 and this sub-section (3) which says: “at the foot thereof”; whereas the 1918 Act says: “upon the authority.” Recently a telegram was sent to the Port Elizabeth South African Party candidate for Three Rivers by Rt. Hon. General Smuts, the leader of the Opposition, wishing the candidate, naturally, success at the election. I understand that the telegram was quoted in toto in the Eastern Province Herald, but did not bear the signature of the publisher at the foot thereof. We know the proprietor of the Eastern Province Herald is Sir Edgar Walton, and I understand he was duly prosecuted in Port Elizabeth for a contravention of this sub-section and warned. On that he appealed to the Eastern Districts Court, which found that, technically, the law had been broken. I am trying to show the stupidity of this provision in the Act of 1926, and I propose at a later date, to move for the deletion of that provision.

What a hope you’ve got.

Since we passed this Act hon. members have no doubt seen some very stupid things in papers dealing in a far distant way with electoral matters and at the foot the author of the article would subscribe his name. It might be taken by some remote reasoning to relate to an impending election, but it would be stupid to prosecute in such cases, as I maintain it was stupid to have prosecuted in this case at Port Elizabeth. I understand the Minister is contending, or will contend, that a provision of that nature is not admissible in the present circumstances. I would point out for his consideration that the Bill at present under consideration is to amend “further the Electoral Act of 1919.” I just mention this casually, but it will save a good deal of time in case you are consulted, Mr. Speaker, if I bring to your notice that the amendment I will propose is apropos of the Bill now under consideration. I hope the Minister wall, on this occasion, see the sweet reasonableness of the proposal I intend making at the proper time.

I just want to reply to what the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) has said. I hope I misunderstood the hon. member when he said that he intends to move an amendment in the committee stage to delete section 35 and another following section in the existing Act. I hope I misunderstood him because otherwise it means that he is introducing a contentious clause into a non-contentious Bill, and as certain as the sun will shine to-morrow, the Bill will not pass this session. It will mean that these improvements which will remedy the objections of many electors, and also of some hon. members, cannot be applied at the next election. I hope therefore that the hon. member will not again introduce a question which was discussed for days here two years ago. As for the criticism of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) I do not know whether he quite understands the trend of the Bill, but what is intended in the provisions of the clause to which he objects is very clear. There are two opportunities for the voters to come on to the voters’ roll. The one is when the registration officer goes about the various wards, and records the votes in the houses. That is the first opportunity, and all persons who have lived three months in the constituency, and who are entitled to vote, are included by him. But if there are people who have not yet lived three months in the constituency the official does not include them. They therefore cannot make use of that opportunity to register. But three months later when the provisional list is prepared there will be another opportunity for the people who have been omitted for some reason or other to get on the voter’s roll. They must then, however, send in an application form, and if they are entitled to vote they will be put on the roll. The people who, on the first occasion were not able to get on to the roll because they had not yet lived three months in the constituency, will, if this Bill is passed, have an opportunity of subsequently getting on to it, when they have already been three months in a constituency. It will not cause any trouble whatever, because the electoral machinery will already be in operation then, and it will there-fore occasion no difficulties and expense to put the people on the roll. What the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) wants to move cannot be done in practice. He wants the people who have not yet resided there for three months to remain on the old voters’ roll, and for them subsequently to be transferred on a supplementary roll to the new constituency. The proposal of the hon. member was dealt with two years ago, when the Electoral Bill was before the House, and we found that it was unpractical for the following reasons. Take a man who comes from Zout-pansberg to live in Cape Town two months before the registration. He cannot get on to the-voters’ roll here, and according to the hon. member’s proposal he must provisionally remain on the voters’ roll of Zoutpansberg. But they know nothing about the man there. The magistrate or the electoral officer does not know whether he is not possibly dead, and whether he was previously entitled to be registered. The machinery that exists is quite inadequate for the purpose, and the expense and trouble will be very great. As proposed in the Bill it will be very easy, and it will not cause extra expense. The first opportunity to get on to the roll will be when the registration officer comes, and the second when the application form is filled up three months and 32 days after the first opportunity of registering. It is an easy and practical way of meeting the existing objection.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

I move—

If the other Bill was non-contentious, then this is still more so. I just want to explain in a few words why it has been introduced. In 1924 this House passed a Naturalization Act for South-West Africa, which said that all German subjects then residing in South-West could obtain Union citizenship on certain conditions, without their having specially to apply for it. They became Union subjects by Act of Parliament, unless within a period of six months after the Act came into force they stated that they did not want to accept Union citizenship. In the Act of 1924 it was laid down that the Union Naturalization Act which then was in force, namely, the Act of 1910 should apply to South-West. Well, the Act which I have just referred to came into operation on the 15th September, 1924, then the period of six months commenced to run, and the time, within which they could object, ended on the 16th March, 1925. In the case of the German subjects the Act therefore actually came into operation on the 16th March, 1925, but in 1926, the year after, another naturalization Act came into force after being passed by this House, namely, the Act on British Nationality and Status of Aliens, which repealed the Act of 1910, and also that in respect of South-West. The result was that under the 1910 Act minors in South-West could only be registered between the 16th March, 1925, and the 30th June, 1926, because their parents were naturalized in that way. On 30th June, 1926, the 1910 Act was repealed, and the children could no longer be registered under it. The result is that there are a number of minor children in South-West who, in the period of just over a year, were absent from South-West because they were at school in Germany or for other reasons, and they could not be naturalized at that time, because they were not in the country, and when they returned from Germany the Act affecting them had lapsed. They could therefore not benefit under the provisions about naturalization, and the children must adopt a different method of becoming naturalized from what to their parents took. The parents did not need to apply specially, but the children have to do so. There is strong feeling at present in South-West Africa with regard to this matter. This Bill puts things right, and also includes the children who were absent at that time, provided they return to South Africa within five years. Then there is a class of person in South Africa for whom no provision existed under previous legislation, and those are the orphans who were in South-West all the time, but were minors. There was no father or mother to act on their behalf, and according to this Bill, they will also be included among the children who were absent, just as in the case of illegitimate children. Then there is another small amendment. Under the existing Act the Minister has to validate the naturalization of the person by issuing an individual certificate. This occasions considerable trouble, while the present object is naturalization in the mass, and the motion is merely to so alter it as to make it possible. After this explanation I hope the Bill will be agreed to.

Is the Minister quite sure that the Bill will carry out the objects he hopes to attain? The measure does not definitely deal with the two classes of persons mentioned. Is this intended to apply only to minors?

It also applies to those who have become majors in the meantime.

Suppose a lad left South-West Africa for Germany when he was 16 years of age and returned to South-West Africa when he was still under 21? Is he deemed to be naturalized?

When he is 21 years of age he can make a declaration.

No person can make a declaration of alienage until he is over 21.

Minors also become naturalized conditionally, in so far that when they become 21 they can make a declaration of alienage.

I am not opposing the Bill, but will it carry out the objects it sets out to achieve?

I think it is all right.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

On the motion that the House go into committee now,

I object.

To go into committee to-morrow.

I move—

This is an innocent little Bill, but at the same time it is rather far-reaching in its consequences.

That sounds suspicious.

The existing Act does not go far enough to cope with pirates it being very difficult to trace them. The real object of the Bill is in the amended section 13 of the principal Act prohibited possession or sale of radio apparatus. It is proposed that no person shall sell, give or supply any radio apparatus to any other person unless he holds a licence to deal in or a permit to transfer the apparatus. The dealers in wireless apparatus were consulted on this point, and from their side at all events there is no opposition at all to this. Members will realize that in order to get at the pirate you have to attack the source of his supply. Once he has got his apparatus in being, it is an almost hopeless task. It is easy, of course, where a licence has once been issued to a person. You simply follow it up, and if he does not renew it, the postmaster-general communicates with the inspector of the broadcasting company and they soon bring him to heel. I do not think any member of the House is desirous of allowing a pirate to escape. It amounts almost to a common theft. A man is taking something which is not his.

Whom do you class as a pirate —a pincher?

A very apt description. A pirate is a man who is taking advantage of the expenditure and effort of the broadcasting company without paying anything in return. The Radio Act, of course, lays it down that he shall take out a licence to listen in and pay for it. I wish to, draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that here we have a definition in Clause or the amending Bill, which is something new. There you have a definition of a radio apparatus. It means any radio aerial, radio crystal set, radio loudspeaker or radio telephone receiver and includes any other article used for radio which the Minister has from time to time declared by notice in the Gazette to be a radio apparatus. I claim to my credit that I have kept a very watchful eye on the position. Originally the broadcasting company wanted valves inserted in the definition, and I refused that, because we are finding that development in all directions of a wireless character is based fundamentally on the use of a valve of some sort somewhere. This is a case in point. I found that some man in Durban had invented an appliance for enlarging the volume of sound from gramophones, and he did that with a value. I came to the conclusion that if we included valves in the definition, the probability is that the broadcasting company, which was set up for a specific purpose, might possibly get a grip of all scientific developments of this character and that it was very unwise to put it in Even though you might hedge it round with qualifications, there was a great element of danger in the inclusion.

It gives you an indefinite power to declare.

Oh, yes. I think that is essential. Any Minister will be very watchful of any declaration he might make. The whole scientific world is at sea with regard to wireless development. Nobody knows where it is going to end or the course it is going to follow. They can only see the indications to-day and these may be changed to morrow, therefore it is necessary that the Minister should have power to increase the number of declared items. If there has been any delay in publication of this Bill, let me say it is due to the fact that the original draft submitted to me by the African Broadcasting Company was not acceptable at all. I was careful to safeguard the position of all other inventors and people who may be developing wireless commercially or scientifically. The controversy that raged round the inclusion or exclusion of the word “valve” lasted for many weeks. If the Bill has not been on The stocks sufficiently long, it is not because I wanted to hoodwink the House, but because I was taking every care to safeguard the public, the inventor and the developer. I do not want everything to fall into the hands of the broadcasting company. I move the second reading.

I think we all appreciate that the Minister did not wish everything to fall into the hands of the African Broadcasting Company. The Minister has taken this very wide definition of radio apparatus, which is the key of the Bill, and under that he is entitled to declare any article used for radio. After all this Bill is aimed at dealers.

Dealers and users.

I should like to ask the Minister whether dealers in radio have been consulted as to this Bill. I may say at once that the House is in entire sympathy with the Minister’s desire to get radio pirates in time, The only question is whether you are going too far. You are now making an offence under the Act of 1926, for which the offender is liable to punishment in various ways, including confiscation. Here you have it that “any person who erects, maintains, uses or has in his possession any radio apparatus without an appropriate licence or permit” is guilty of an offence. How about the man who is pursuing a course of inventions in radio discoveries which may be of the greatest importance to the radio world? Under this you have the power to treat that man as a criminal for having in his possession without the appropriate licence any apparatus. I would like to ask the Minister in what way the man who is an inventor can protect himself against being found guilty of an offence for having in his possession radio apparatus. If I am making genuine experiments, can I get a licence for doing that? I come to the next sub-section (2), which says that “no person shall sell, give or in any manner whatever supply any radio apparatus to any other person unless he holds a licence to deal in or a permit to transfer such radio apparatus.” I would like to ask the Minister, because this is a very serious interference with the freedom of trade, whether he has consulted radio leaders as to this clause, which puts them in the position of having committed an offence, with very serious penalties under the original Act. I am asking this question out of real public interest, because I want the radio thief, if possible, to get it in the neck every time, as I am sure the Minister does, but I want to see that the unfortunate man who is playing the game perfectly well shall not also be punished. Then in sub-section (3) any person licensed under sub-section (2) to deal in radio apparatus is not to sell, give or supply radio apparatus to any person who is not the holder of an experimenter’s licence and so forth. How is that man going to satisfy himself that the other man is the holder of an experimenter’s licence? It does not seem to me that these are important points. My experience is that there is no person like a Labour Minister when it comes to the putting up of offences.

I am grateful to the House for the kindly way in which it has received this Bill and particularly the hon. member (Mr. Close) who has criticized, not adversely, of course, but with the object of endeavouring to find out. He states that in the original definition there is very wide power. I explained at the beginning that it is a sheer impossibility for one to anticipate the developments that may take place in regard to wireless. He asked in connection with the clause with regard to selling, giving, etc., to experimenters, whether the dealers have been consulted. Yes, they have. They have been consulted on two occasions to my own knowledge in regard to this and they realize the difficulty there is. They realize that it is necessary for them to he licensed and to keep a record of those whom they deal with. The only question with them was how are you going to define this radio apparatus. We have succeeded in doing that, I think, very satisfactorily, with rather broad general power to the Minister to control all things.

Fairly well from the bureaucratic point of view.

One point was brought out by the hon. member which I appreciate. He is anxious not to have any of these penalties looming in the distance or close at hand, in so far as the possibility of any man experimenting, inventing, etc., is concerned. I agree with him, but I want to assure him that there is no danger whatever. There are special licences for inventors. The parties to whom an offence attaches for lack of a licence are the listeners-in on the one hand and the dealers on the other. We have been very careful indeed. I want to say that Clause 13 already provides for the penalty that the hon. member laid stress upon, or rather the action which involves the penalty.

But these are new persons.

Yes, but the original Act holds that in effect. [Clause 13 of Act No. 20 of 1926 quoted.]

The new offence is selling without a permit.

Yes, it is not a new offence, but it is rather broadening the scope of the application of the offence. It really means that there are more people who are liable to commit the offence.

Another set of criminals.

Yes, potential criminals. They do not become criminals until they commit the crime.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

If there is no objection, I would move—

May I appeal to the Minister not to put this Bill down for committee stage this evening? It is a small House and the committee stage might be left over until to-morrow.

House to go into committee to-morrow.

I move that the report be adopted.

seconded.

Agreed to.