I shall move to-morrow that the House at its rising on Friday adjourn until Monday, 25th February.

What about the promise that if we sit in the mornings we shall not sit in the evenings?

For that reason I have not given notice of night sittings; I intend to observe my promise as closely as possible.

Owing to petitions in opposition to the Rand Mines Power Supply Company Additional Water Supply (Private) Bill having been referred to the Select Committee on the Bill, the Committee will meet as on an opposed Private Bill.

There is just one matter in the report to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister and that is the non-payment for licences to the municipalities by the railways for their motor-buses and motor vehicles.

The report has been adopted. A Bill will be drawn up and the hon. member will be able to deal with the matter then.

Bill brought up.

I move—

Hon. members will see that, according to the Bill, as well as the report of the Railway Board which has been laid on the Table, this is a case where authority was given by the House to build a line, but where at the final survey it was found that there would be such a variation in comparison with the first survey that it has become necessary since submitting it to the legal adviser to obtain the authority of Parliament for the deviations. Hon. members will see that there is no change in the points of departure. The reasons for the changes are set out in the report of the Railway Board. Hon. members will possibly ask why a more complete and careful survey was not made in the first instance. The reason is that when a railway programme is submitted to the House it is based on quite a hurried preliminary survey, and when subsequently the various lines are surveyed in detail it is sometimes found that variations are necessary. The House will possibly say that the first survey should be a detailed one, but hon. members must not forget that the cost of such a line would be increased, and that the possibility exists that the Government, or the House, may eventually decide not to build the line. Then all the money a detailed survey would cost would be wasted. I therefore think that in the circumstances such a flying survey is the best. As for the details of this line the length will now approximately be 11 miles, while the originally approved length was 10 miles. The estimated cost was £48,700, and that of the altered line is estimated at £58,115. The Government intends to proceed with the construction immediately. It would have been done before had this difficulty not occurred. Everything is ready to make a start. The loss on the line is expected to be £1,405.

We quite appreciate the necessity of some change after the very cursory examination given to this line. We know the survey is not a very full survey, and that is a matter about which members on this side have complained for a long time. What we do feel in regard to this Bill is that the Minister has come forward now to perpetuate what we consider is something which has not been fully inquired into, and I feel the Minister should have given a clear statement on his policy with regard to the building of branch lines. We have had many discussions of late in regard to the closing of branch lines as un-payable, and I think the Minister will admit that, in the absence of statistics, we have the right to judge that branch lines are not paying. If you look at the Auditor-General’s report you will find he has very strongly criticized the action of the Railway Board in regard to the information placed before Parliament. In his report for 1925-’26, on page 84, he gives a long list of errors made by the Railway Board, due entirely to the cursory survey made in the first instance. I hold that when the Minister comes to Parliament for consent to build a line he is required under the South Africa Act to give us an accurate estimate of the cost. In all these cases the income is far lower than the estimate, and we feel that the information should be given us in the first instance. Then we come to the possibilities of the lines, and the Auditor-General has shown that in no single instance has the estimate been correct, and in every instance there has been a shortfall. The competition of the road services should have the keenest consideration of the Government, and when the Minister asks us to perpetuate what I might call the evil of branch lines, he ought to have told us what is the effect of this competition. We have in the rejort of the Auditor-General the under-estimate of the cost of building of these lines. Take the Matubatuba-Pongola line—the estimate was out by £211,000; in the Upington-Kakamas line is was out by £41,000; in the Ceres-Prince Albert line it was out by £17,000, and in the George-Knysna line by £138,000. Surely that is a very serious matter, and when the Minister comes and asks ns to alter what we have agreed to, he should also give us a closer estimate than he has given us to-day, and he ought to tell us whether, in his opinion, after the careful consideration which he ought to have given, this is going to be a payable proposition and road competition is not going to hamper him in the working of this particular line. The Minister has competition from the Agricultural Department in some parts of the country—one department competing against another—and not only private competition. It has been mentioned in this House several times.

Where? Give us the information.

I need not go into it now. The matter has been mentioned several times.

By whom?

The Minister ought to pay better attention to the debates of this House. He will say he has appointed a commission to go into the matter of road competition, but can he tell us whether the public will be satisfied with this report? There is no man on the commission who knows anything about traffic.

I may point out to the hon. member that we are not discussing railway policy, but the alteration of a line already authorized by Parliament.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that what we are discussing now is the Government’s policy with regard to the extension of branch lines.

That is not the subject of discussion; but whether the alteration of this line ought to be confirmed. I have allowed the hon. member a wide latitude, but I cannot allow a general discussion.

May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, whether we should not know, when we are asked to assent to this, what the Government’s policy is in regard to branch lines?

The hon. member will l ave a proper opportunity later on of discussing this very fully.

I do think now is the opportunity for the Government to tell us what their policy is. We have some lines closed, and the Minister, I understand, is going to ask us to close others. We ought to know what the Government’s policy is.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has raised the point. If there is one line which cannot be delayed it is this one. It was approved in 1925, and the point now raised should have been raised in 1925. The Minister of Railways is now frankly coming to the House because the lengthening is going to cost more than 10 per cent, more than the original line, and the law provides that in such a case the deviation requires the approval of Parliament. In the past under the previous Government there were cases where the lengthening exceeded 10 per cent., but the approval of the House was not asked for. The Minister has already said that the first survey is a flying one in all cases. There was no great mistake made in the preliminary survey, but it was found that the grade would be more favourable by altering the line which would make the costs of maintenance cheaper. The line will cost a little more, and now the hon. member brings up this great scarecrow about the powers of the Government. This line is two years overdue, and should have been completed last year, but the Government is so punctilious as to ask for the approval of Parliament. I hope the provision will be so amended that in future the Government will have the power of authorizing such lengthenings. I hope the House will now approve of the change without further debate.

I think this is a fair opportunity to ask the Government what their policy will be in regard to this matter. While the Minister has been in office he has encouraged motor transport, and I think very successfully. I have given him every credit for that, but I would like to know what is the good of constructing these branch lines when you have this motor transport. Would this not serve the Government just as well as this particular line? Are the Government going to go on with this road transport business and, at the same time, with these branch lines? Has the time not come, especially in view of the success of this new department for my hon. friend to let branch lines alone until the country is more developed?

I quite agree with what the hon. member who has just spoken had to say about road transport, and the necessity for seeing whether expenditure upon the building of branch lines cannot be saved. I would submit to the Government that the form of the present Railway Construction Acts is most unsatisfactory. The Act of Union requires that before a new line of railway is decided upon, the Railway Board shall go over the intended route and that the resulting Act shall be based upon their report. We find that Acts now brought into the House simply ask for authority to build a line from one point to another, and within those two points the Railway Administration can apparently do what it likes. Such an Act gives the Railway Administration unlimited power, and that seems to me to be most undesirable. When the Government obtains power to build a line they also get power to expropriate land. Parliament ought to know exactly what farms the proposed line is going to pass through; therefore, I think that the routes of all new railways reported upon by the Railway Board should be embodied in some way in the Act. If afterwards the Administration finds that it must go along some other route, then it can come back to Parliament for the purpose of having another route authorized. Proposals for new lines should be based upon something more detailed than a flying survey, and I hope that in future all Railway Administration Acts will be based upon some definite, considered and thought-out plan showing exactly what is proposed from point A to point B. This House should have far more discretion than at present in these matters, and I should therefore like to see these Railway Acts made far more definite. I think that in these days the building of branch railways is becoming a most serious problem owing to the competition of road transport.

I think it ridiculous for hon. members opposite to make such a fuss when the whole change does not involve £1,400, but that is not the important point in the speeches of the three hon. members opposite. In the first place the late Minister of Railways spoke and he is a business man who thinks he knows what he is doing. Then an hon. member spoke who hopes to become Railway Minister if they ever again come into power, and then there was one of the principal leaders opposite. They all agreed on one point, namely, that no more branch lines ought to be built.

Certainly, in Namaqualand.

I am very glad the hon. member interrupted me because he hopes that his party will neglect Namaqualand more than it has ever yet been neglected. The view of hon. members opposite is, therefore, that no more branch lines should be built. I cannot understand how they can go so far. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) pointed out that the Auditor-General’s report said that there was a deficit of £100,000 on the George to Knysna line, but it was not this Government that passed that line, but the previous one, therefore the criticism applies to them. Hon. members cannot deny that this Government has introduced a much cheaper system by first having a hurried survey made, but in the case of the George to Knysna line very careful surveys were made. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) now talks about lines which must be broken up, but he forgets that one of those which has already made a loss of £150,000 is the Sea Point line, which moreover has even been electrified. The country could build many branch lines in the interior for that sum. Hon. members opposite have, therefore, been speaking against the construction of branch lines, but I should like to know if that is also the view of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), whether they were speaking for themselves only or for their party. The people in the interior must know what will happen if that side ever comes into office again, if no more branch lines will then be built. Hon. members have pointed out that road motor services can be used where railways are asked for. In many cases the road motor services are not able to transport the quantity of produce. In such cases of areas with a large production, it is better to build branch lines than to have motor services.

I do not intend to deal with all the arguments of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). He wants more information about the Government’s policy on branch lines. The hon. member will have every opportunity to discuss the Government’s policy later on. I just want to tell the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that we have not here to do with a new line, but one that has been approved by Parliament, and in good faith towards the districts concerned it must be built, and if, at this stage alterations are necessary, we must approve of them. Hon. members have asked whether motor services cannot do the same work. I want to point out that large quantities of maize are produced in the district, and that it will take years before motors can handle the traffic in mealies on a large scale. I think the Railway Board was justified in 1925 in recommending the building of this line, and now the amendments also. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said that we should give more particulars. A map and all the details can be found in the report of the Railway Board. In the past railway programmes have always been based on flying surveys. If that policy is to be altered in future it can be discussed on a suitable occasion. It could come up when the new railway programme is introduced.

I move—

I do not propose to deal with the whole subject of shipping. It will be within the knowledge of hon. members that constant complaints have been made during the last few years, not only by importers, but also by a large number of exporters, more particularly exporters of wool, mohair and similar products; and those complaints have been that the conference lines treat unfairly importers and exporters. As is probably inevitable, these complaints are directed to the Government, and the Government is asked to deal with them. The matter, of course, is one of very great difficulty. The Government has therefore felt that the time has come for the establishment of an advisory body in South Africa to which these complaints can be referred, an advisory body which will deal with these complaints, and advise the Government as to what action should be taken. I may say that the Bill is the result of consultation which I have had with the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Industries and the Agricultural Union.

When had you a consultation with the Chamber of Commerce?

At the time when the shipping negotiations were being conducted. The Bill now appears with very slight alterations after submission to all these bodies, including the Chamber of Commerce. I have a letter from the Chamber of Commerce saying that they agreed to the main principles of this Bill. I hope the hon. member will also agree with them. As early as 1904 the Association passed a resolution asking for legislation throughout South Africa with regard to preferential rates and rebates, and the Dominions Royal Commission dealt with the whole matter in their report, and recommended that shipping boards should be established in all the dominions. In seeking powers to establish an advisory shipping board, we are therefore acting in agreement with the chambers of commerce and other public bodies in South Africa. The Bill provides for the establishment of a board to advise the Government on all ocean freight matters— not only in regard to the conveyance of cargo to and from Europe, but on all freight matters. All that the board will be able to do is to advise. We believe that by representations to the shipping interests concerned we shall be able to deal satisfactorily with the problems with which we are faced. Whether that will be sufficient is another matter, but an attempt should be made by friendly representation to secure that the interests of South Africa will be safeguarded. The expense in connection with the board will not be great, as it is intended to use our shipping department for the clerical work. Coming to the terms of the Bill itself, section (1) provides for a board of six members, one each to be nominated by the Association of Chambers of Commerce, the Federated Chamber of Industries and the South African Agricultural Union, the other three to be nominated by the Governor-General-in-Council. The board will have as advisers public servants who will have no vote. Strong representations have been made that greater representations on the board should be given to commerce, but that is a matter which the Government will consider when they appoint the members.

There is the poor old consumer.

All those bodies are supposed to look after his interests. The wool shippers amongst other interests affected desire representation.

Surely they come within the category of commerce.

They perform a very important function. I do not say that a member of that organization will be appointed as a Government nominee. There are other interests apart from commerce, industries and agriculture, whose claims will have to be considered. In general it is the intention of the Government to make this a real live body.

Are the others all dead?

If this body is to carry due weight we shall have to appoint men who will carry public weight.

With whom?

With the conference lines and those who do business in the shipping worid.

Other things being equal.

If hon. members have anything to say, they might do so at the propel occasion Let me tell the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) who thinks this is a subject for levity that this matter is amongst the most pressing and serious of questions to a large number of exporters and importers. It is rather surprising that the hon. member should make it a matter for levity.

I was not making it a matter for levity, but your way of putting the point.

With regard to section (2) of the Bill the activities of the board will cover all matters relating to shipping to Union ports. Section (3) deals with the power to make regulations. It is our intention not to promulgate the regulations until the board has been constituted, so that the members will have an opportunity of dealing with and approving of the regulations. I hope the House will accept the Bill as it has been framed in consultation with all the interests concerned. It is necessary that we should have a responsible body to look after the interests of importers and exporters. It is not the intention to coerce but to consult freely and frankly, and in that way to achieve the best interests of South Africa.

I quite agree with the Minister when he says this is a matter of the utmost difficulty, and of peculiar and painful interest to the whole of the people of South Africa, and not only to the importers and exporters. I, therefore, move the following amendment, because I feel confident that the Bill will not secure what the Minister honestly hopes to achieve, that is the protection of the interests of the whole of the people by the mere institution of a watching board—

I know some of the “hear, hears” on this side of the House were uttered by way of being ironical. But it must never be forgotten that after years of constant effort, with the facts always patent to members, the House deliberately decided—not unanimously, because I know the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) on principle is always against it—but by a very large majority to agree to a resolution moved by myself which I have outlined and referred to in this amendment. It was the outcome of long, painful and bitter experience, experience which the farming population of South Africa was beginning to understand in the way it affected them. The Minister proposes by the institution of a watching board, a board of investigation, a board which will make representations to the pirate chief of the conference lines, to get some good for the people of South Africa. I hope he will pardon me if I seem somewhat sceptical, and I think even members on this side must themselves confess that any board composed of people of whatever weight you like, whether physical or mental, would be a dead weight and the pirate chief will always overcome them.

Is not the pirate chief rather a friend?

Well, he is to some. What does the Minister propose? He proposes a board that will be keeping more or less constant watch on the decided fluctuations, the intended fluctuations in rates. Anything in the way of an alteration in rates will be reported upon by this board. What will the Minister do? Make representations! Surely the Minister has the most painful experience of making representations. Almost ever since he has been in office he has been faced with this problem of making representations to the Union-Castle Company as the pirate chief of the conference lines and receiving representations in exchange in one long course of correspondence which was fruitless and led nowhere. It was merely a war of words coupled with pious expressions of opinion, but the conference line went on its way just the same. It can hold up the traffic of the Union both ways to ransom just when it likes. I ventured myself to make representations, but what are representations when either the will or the power to enforce them is lacking? While the Minister had the Bill on the stocks, and no doubt when conversations were proceeding between the interests concerned, even then the conference line steamers have raised their rates. He talked of differentiation. It is not only that. There is an increase of rates placing the main tenance of rates at an inordinately high level and in consequence bleeding the people of South Africa. This is the “Cape Times” on the 23rd of last month in which it stales—

It is not a fool’s game although it was decided on April 1st—

In other words a thing which the farmers require very much indeed and which has hitherto cost 10s. to land in this country, now at the dictum of the Union-Castle Company is to be raised to 28s. 6d., or nearly three times as much. I am perfectly open to confess that the former figures are an uneconomic rate and it is not to be expected that anybody, especially any institution controlled by private enterprise, can carry goods at a non-paying rate. But from what we have been told and from comparisons with other parts of the world we discover that the increased rates on these three particular articles—and they are only the forerunner of others—compare very unfavourably with the rest of the world. All our productions of South African foodstuffs cost far more per hundred miles to carry to Europe than it does to carry to Argentina. When we met the Chambers of Commerce, the Agricultural Union and the Chamber of Industries I gave these figures, and though it was sought by friends of the shipping company to minimize their effect it was agreed that the Union-Castle Company was overwhelmingly dear. That was an equal basis of calculation with full ships and the same commodity per hundred miles. The Minister drove what he considered the very best bargain and I agree with him that in all the circumstances it was the best he could make—with the shipping companies in certain classes of goods. For fruit, 52s. 6d. was the rate agreed upon for carriage to Europe. Even that—and it shows the danger of having to negotiate with privately-owned concerns which are monopolies in themselves—whether that was a good rate or a bad rate for the local farmers or the shipping company it militated partially against the South African producer. Only quite recently we had the example of a fruit exporter getting 2s. 6d. a box for his fruit—it does not matter what fruit—and he asserts, and I readily believe him, that it costs him from 4s. to 4s. 6d. to put it on the London market. The point I want to make is that making it a hard and fast figure may militate harshly as far as the interests of the producer are concerned, whereas if you had a state fleet, you could make a change to meet the circumstances of the case, and meet the needs of the people of the Union. I am urging this course because I realize that it is hopeless to have anything else. I myself made representations. We had no means of forcing the conference lines to come to heel and had no opportunity at all; and in point of fact the chief of the conference lines, Lord Kylsant, treated this Government, and is treating it, with the utmost contempt, realizing the strong position in which he stands in relation to the whole of this country. He was in Cape Town about the time the negotiations were contemplated to fix the price for the future carriage of maize, and he actually presided at the empire commercial conference; and yet the negotiations with the Government of the Union of South Africa were of so little consequence to him that he cleared out before they started and left them to one of his subordinates; when it came to the point the latter had to rush to London again to consult his chief. The Minister of Railways and Harbours feels it as deeply as I do. It was a distinct slight on the Union Government, and it shows how Lord Kylsant views the Government and a nation like South Africa as compared with his own power and his right to charge the rates. It is not only highly dangerous but perfectly futile to expect any good results from the appointment of a committee which shall only watch and report. We had all the facts before, and we consulted as to what action we should take. The Minister says that this board will be composed of representatives of the Chambers of Commerce, Chamber of Industries and the South African Agricultural Union. There is a possibility of other interests, such as the wool shippers, being asked; but what about the consumers and that big body of people who have no hope at all and who are between the upper and the nether millstones, between the merchants and the shippers, and who know only that they have to pay. What representation is the Minister going to give to them?—

What does that mean? It means that you will get nobody at all. I know very little about the Agricultural Union, and as far as I am aware they are likely to be outside any interests, but from our knowledge of the facts and our experience we know the power of Lord Kylsant. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) knows that power, and now is going to “get it” while the Thomas Line has given up. There was some hope when that line was fishing in these waters, but when it went out the hon. gentleman was handed over to the tender mercies of the conference lines, which will squeeze him for daring to get out of their clutches. He will transfer the squeeze. Commercial men have quite agreed with these increases in fencing material and so on, as they would be prepared to agree with the increases in other commodities that may be imported or exported. It does not hurt them; they merely pass it on. It is the farmer who will feel the increase on fencing wire, and it is the consumer who will feel the increased freightage. The poor unfortunate consumer in England and other parts of Europe will feel the increased freightage on produce from South Africa, and the poor unfortunate producer of South Africa will also feel the effects of the increase later on, because his market is fixed, and when he tries to distribute his produce the Union-Castle Company and their colleagues will take a bigger and bigger bite. The Minister either knows or he should know, and if he does not I will tell him; the interests of Lord Kylsant are not confined to having a finger in the pie of South Africa. His interests are world-wide and are not confined to shipping. What commercial man will dare to stand up and oppose Lord Kylsant’s wishes; will the hon. member for Cape Town (Central)?

Yes, certainly.

Not very long. Although the hon. member may be a charming swallow, one swallow does not make a summer. Although he may stand up against Lord Kylsant, his other associates of the Chamber of Commerce will not. Lord Kylsant was brought out to preside over the empire congress of the chambers of commerce, and he would not have been asked to do so if his interests were not so powerful. What effect has the shipping committee of the chamber of commerce in London had in keeping down freights or stopping the increase of freight? Lord Kylsant’s finger is in the South African collieries, he controls the whole shipping of the southern hemisphere, and he is not without participation in the shipping trade of the rest of the world.

You exaggerate so.

I do not exaggerate. The only shipping line that was competing with him in the southern hemisphere has been removed by his purchase. All the general arguments that can be used have been used in support of State shipping. The way in which the conference lines can raise its rates of freight have been demonstrated for years past. Each year has brought abundant proof of the danger of leaving the destinies of the nation in the hands of a privately-owned shipping company, and that culminated in the resolution carried by this House in 1925; so there is no need to appeal to the more intelligent members of the House, but it would be foolish to appeal to the foolish members of the House. However, there is no need to further discuss that aspect of the question. As to the composition of this committee, I have shown the Minister in all seriousness that this committee will be very difficult to secure as a free and entirely independent body. I would rather have a committee of highly-placed public servants to watch over this matter. I would rather place the matter in the hands of the chief of the Minister’s own shipping department. Many besides myself bitterly regret the departure from the Union of Sir William Hoy, because if there was a man in the public service—I did not always agree with him—a man who had shipping matters in this country at his fingers’ ends, who had the interests of the people at heart, and who could bring a statesmanlike view to bear upon this question, it was Sir William Hoy. I am indeed sorry for the fate of South Africa in this regard when he saw fit to leave us. He would have never agreed to this shipping board; he was always advising in the direction I am advising to-day, namely, own and control your own shipping in the same way as you own and control your own railways. After all, why should we send our produce to the coast and then abandon it to the tender mercies of a privately-owned concern? Hon. members sneer, joke, jibe and grin fatuously. This I regard as direct evidence that they have not the interests of the citizens of South Africa at heart, but that they want to run these matters in the interests of themselves. In my opinion this Bill will be perfectly inoperative. The committee will seriously advise the Minister, the Minister will tell them seriously they are doing wrong, and then the committee will report that they are not doing wrong and will go on in the same way. When we reach the committee stage, I hope that someone will keep an eye on their machinations.

In seconding this amendment, I need only say that the mover has dealt so comprehensively with the subject that there is little left for me to remark on, but I wish to remind this House and the country that the steamship line which is claimed to be serving this country so well has been paid for by this country. I want members to remember that every ship of the Union-Castle Company has been paid for by this country, some of them twice and three times over, so the country can face the fact that they will either pay for ships and own those ships, or else pay for vessels owned by others and let the profits of running them go to shareholders. To be subject to being throttled by having our produce held up at the coast by an intermediate shipping link is the utmost folly. I don’t altogether agree with the idea of the country at once owning Out and out a full shipping service. The experience of Australia has not been altogether a happy one, and one cannot blind one’s eyes to failures that are in the way of State ownership. I daresay difficulties can be overcome, but take it at its worst Australians claim that what they have lost through bad management was made up to them by reduced freights. That is why one is in favour of State insurance and State banking and various other forms of socialism. There are alternative plans, and a very effective one is what Government has arranged on the East Rand, at the Premier Mine, and the new iron works at Pretoria, and that is a partnership. It is possible for a country to have a controlling interest, and yet the management to be in the hands of those who are specially trained to it. The first step would be for the country to guarantee the capital, or the interest on the capital, and to have a controlling interest, and then allow a company to run the whole thing for the country. That will be a step forward, because the State can always get the service of trained men who are as willing to serve the country as to serve shareholders. It is idle to think that trained men of high intellectual capacity and good moral fibre will not serve the country as efficiently as they will a private profit making company. We had, in Sir William Hoy, for instance, a very capable State servant. A country ought to be able to take up an experiment and face it, because we may be perfectly sure that if the Union-Castle or any other line is a dividend-paying success, it is the country that is paying the dividends. The company renders service for the express purpose of getting a profit out of producers and consumers. I think the mover of the amendment has shown that the suggested board itself will be very ineffective. These huge combines that are forming all over the world protest that they are not earning large interest. It is not so. A nominal capital is put up, and the capital itself said to be invested has never been there. A few of the companies combine and write up and inflate their nominal capital, and then say that they are getting only five or ten per cent, on it. The whole world is being treated in this way, and that is spreading the idea of the growing necessity for State action and State socialism.

I should be inclined to take more notice of what the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) says if he did not exaggerate so much. He made a statement that Lord Kylsant owns all the shipping lines. Take the Harrison Line. He has not a sixpence in that. Take the P. & O. Line; I don’t think he has any interest in that. Then my hon. friend says that he cannot find anybody in Cape Town upon whom the shipping companies could not bring pressure to bear. I can find a dozen men who have no interest in any of the shipping companies, and who are above being influenced in the way he has suggested. With regard to the body which it is proposed to set up under the Bill, if it is called into existence it will be entirely at the Minister’s beck and call. Anybody who has any grievance will be advised to go to the Minister. The Minister will get the board working when he is thus approached. Now what does this mean? It means harassing the shipping companies. Somebody comes along and complains about the shipping. The Minister sends the complaint to the shipping board, and sets them to work, and, of course, the principal result is the harassing of the shipping companies. I do not favour this particular Bill, though I do not want to strongly oppose it, because it means interfering with business enterprise. Why cannot business men be left to look after their own business? There is an Act of Parliament on the statute book which gives every protection to importers. He proposes to control rates and freights so far as the shipper is concerned, but how about controlling freights as far as the shipowners are concerned? We have seen in the papers that recently the shipowners have lost money. Will the hon. member arrange to compensate them? What is right for one is surely right for the other. It is just as correct for Government to control the prices of commodities as it is for Government to control freights. The board will look after the interests of shippers, but the shipowners are told to look after themselves. The Bill can have only one result—to raise prices against the consumer, as the Bill will eliminate opposition, for no shipowner will come into the South African trade when he knows of the existence of such a board. This is essentially a business matter, and if we must have a board there should be a railway official on it with full voting power. Surely railway officials are as trustworthy and intelligent as the ordinary business man.

I do not think the shipping lines deserve the comments that have been made against them from the labour benches. Although the mercantile world have had disputes with the shipping lines, in fact one is still in progress, we all recognize that they give South Africa first class service. If these hon. members knew what had happened since the war in regards to shipping they would not display their ignorance by references to the huge profits made by shipping companies. As to the Bill, I would not like to say that the Minister does not need all the advice he can possibly get, for there is nothing more intricate than shipping matters. I remember when Dr. Jameson was Prime Minister he and Sir Edgar Walton thought they would tackle the shipping question, and they had the assistance of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and they found that they were babes in the hands of the shipping companies for want of special knowledge. The advice of mercantile people in connection with the mail contracts also saved the present Minister from putting his foot very deeply into the mud and placing the country in a Very false position indeed. The wool shippers have recently been appealing to the Government to take certain action; the Minister found there was nothing he could do, and it is quite likely that after the Bill is passed the Minister will still be powerless. There is nothing in the Bill to show what the Minister is going to do after he has received the advice of the board. The mercantile community in my part of the world are not at all keen on the Bill but they are not going to oppose it. For one thing the headquarters of the shipping companies are not here, and there is a committee in London which has done very good service and given satisfaction to shippers. With this committee in London and an advisory board in South Africa there may be over-lapping, for when the Minister refers matters to the representatives of the shipping companies here, he is told that the question must be submitted to headquarters in London.

That is not satisfactory.

It is not satisfactory, so would it not be better to work through the committee on the other side? As to the constitution of the board the people who know most about the matter are the shipping companies. Is it wise to have a board without shipping interests being interested on it? I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) that the majority of the board should consist of elected members. Although doubtful as the real value of a board, I am not opposing its establishment.

The Minister, in moving the first reading of this Bill, really does not give us very strong reasons why the Government should interfere between the commercial, industrial and agricultural communities and the shipping companies. I agree with the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) that this advisory board is going to have no powers and will be of no effective use at all, and I would suggest to the Minister, if he intends to interfere with commerce and industry, he should do it effectively and not simply set up a board which is going to give advice which may or may not be accepted by the Minister, and if not accented will simply dishearten the members. I believe representations made direct by either of the associations mentioned in Clause 2 would be just as effective as representations made by the Government, and it would have the advantage that each association would make representations regarding its own special points, and they are much more competent to put these points to a shipping company than any Government department. Then as regards the constitution of the board, as several members have pointed out, the Government have a majority. The result is that the Government will only receive the advice if wants to receive. As far as I can see, any of these associations may particularly want to present some point of view, but unless the Government wish to receive that advice, the three Government members can simply block any chance of that advice being sent to the Government. It seems to be a most unfortunate provision. The Minister said, and I do not doubt it, that all these bodies have asked for this board, but I imagine that they are getting a shipping board quite different from the one they imagined.

They agreed to the terms of the Bill as submitted.

I do not think they imagined they were going to get a shipping board on which the commercial, industrial and agricultural interests combined would be in the minority, a board in which the people most interested would not have any effective control. I think if the Government had told them in the first instance: “We are going to appoint a board in which we have the majority and which will decide what kind of advice is to be sent to us”, these three associations would have said: “In that case, you had better leave us out”.

The Bill was submitted as it stands, and they gave their approval.

The original board was not a board with a majority of members representing the Government. We have had advisory boards in other directions, and they are most unsatisfactory. For instance, we have the Harbour advisory boards. As far as I know, men interested in commerce are asked to sit on these boards and they have, it is true, an opportunity of putting the commercial view in front of the officials of the railway administration. But I must say the railway administration, having received the views of these members, follows its own sweet will. Without these advisory boards all these associations have the opportunity of presenting their views. They can present them direct. For instance, if the Agricultural Union or the Industrial Federation or the Chambers of Commerce feel they are not getting all they want from the shipping companies, they can go to the Government and point that out. There is nothing to prevent them, but the only thing the Minister is going to do is to set up a sort of circumlocution office and complaints will go first of all to this board and from there they will go to the Minister. There is another thing I object to. In Clause 3 (c) and (d) we have the same inquisition as we have in so many Acts relating to Government control. They want to know everything concerning everyone’s private affairs. Before long, there will not be a human being who is not known inside out by officials in the country. The Minister here provides that six private men are going to have full powers to investigate and demand all kinds of information regarding any shipping company whose ships come into these ports. Is that going to do us much good? Immediately a company suggests carrying goods to or from our ports, these six gentlemen can say: “We want to know everything about your private affairs”. I particularly object to the extension of this inquisition. I quite agree that the Minister for five years has been mixing with the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Labour and so on, and it is dangerous to be in such close proximity to views of this kind, but it is time we stopped this sort of thing in this country. There is one other point which seems to be a great difficulty in this Bill, and that is, we have three different associations— commerce, industry and agriculture—on the one side and on the other side we have three Government men—one interest. In many instances these associations differ very materially, and the Government people will if they are wise understand the art of dividing and ruling. It will be a comparatively simple matter as far as I can see—the commercial and industrial people may disagree on certain points and the agricultural people disagree with the other two. It is a disease we have in our country that the first thing an individual does if he does not get what he wants is to run to the Government. I am sorry I cannot see any good in this Bill, which is going to cost a little bit more money, add another secretary or two and some more typists. It is going to do no practical good, and it will be a source of great annoyance to the shipping companies. I do not think we have any reason particularly to annoy and worry an industry which has done its fair day’s work for the country. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) seems to think there is something morally wrong in the shipping companies working to make a profit. There is nothing morally wrong at all in that. I feel that this Bill is only another cumbersome thing foisted on the community, which we will have to keep going.

I think that the difference of outlook between members of the South African party and of the Labour party was aptly illustrated by a remark which the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) made that he disagreed with the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) when he said that the shipping companies should be run for service and not for profit. That is what this country complains of, and has a right to complain, with regard to the shipping companies. I would not have risen if it had not been for the interjection on the part of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), who stigmatised as extravagant the statement of my colleague that Lord Kylsant controls the whole of the shipping on this coast and has a finger in the pie of practically the shipping of the world. I took the trouble to find out what lines are controlled by him, so that they may be placed on the records of this House. In 1926 he controlled the Pacific Steam Navigation company, the Royal Mail Steam Packet company, the Nelson line, the Royal Mail Steam Packet Meat Transport company, the MacAndrew’s company, the Nelson Steam Navigation company, the Union-Castle company, the Elder, Dempster Company, Lamport & Holt, the Argentine Navigation company, the African Shipping company, the Belfast steamship company, the British & Irish Steam Packet company, the Burns-Laird line, the Coast line, David McIver & Company, the British & African Steam Navigation company, Elder line, the Imperial Direct line, James Moss & company, the Moss Steamship company, John Hill & company, Fuller, and King & company. These lines were in 1926 directly controlled by Lord Kylsant, and there are lines which have been added since, such as the Australian State Steamship line. There are complaints against international sea and world control of shipping. I will read from a book by Professor Colley in which he points out the remarkable unanimity with which the representatives of commerce are defending the Union-Castle company. He deals with the question of restricted and strangling competition and the rebate system, and he points out how, in South Africa we had nominally and theoretically, at least, succeeded in killing the rebate system. He says—

I wonder for whom it is going to be healthier, and whether it is going to be healthier for the Government or the consumer. He goes on to say—

The burglars are enlisting the policemen against the householder. That means that the shipping interests have enlisted the assistance of the shipper, and that between the two the consumers in this country have to suffer. I am glad that the Government is introducing some business methods in controlling this matter. I can fully appreciate the position of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) who complain about the number of Government officials already appointed. I can also quite understand the attitude of the burglar who complains about the presence of a policeman. The position is developing to such an extent that it will pay the community to take over its shipping altogether, and I would therefore suggest that in order to see that the consumer is not robbed unnecessarily, the Minister should seriously consider the establishment of State shipping.

I heartily welcome the Bill. I did not have the slightest intention of interfering in a matter of this kind, but not long ago I had the opportunity in Port Elizabeth of listening to the representations of a deputation of buyers. It cannot be doubted that the complaints of the buyers about hard treatment by the conference lines in connection with the carriage of wool is well grounded. There arose competition between the conference lines and the Cambrian line, and because the latter had such temerity the former made an attempt to force the wool buyers at the ports to sign a contract that they would only send their wool by the conference lines. Our attitude and that of the wool buyers who did not sign the contract was that it is in the best interests of South Africa that there should be competition in shipping. Because six or eight wool buyers would not sign the contract they are penalized to an amount of one-eighth of a penny per pound on wool. Still more, although they were not expressly told that the conference lines would not carry their wool their transport is balked under the pretence that there is no room for their wool on the ships. I was, however, told that ships leave Port Elizabeth with sufficient space, and that the pretence is only used to make the few buyers lose money on their purchases of wool. The buyers who suffer from the penalty are foreign buyers from Germany, Holland and also England. Although I cannot go into details, the conference lines, by manipulation, got rid of the competition of the Cambrian line, but the penalty is still retained by manipulation. I am very sorry that the Shipping Board is only advisory, because I want it to have executive power, and the right to take action. I am afraid that after the institution of the board the Government will be just as impotent as it is to-day, which is not only unjust towards the wool buyers, but also to South African producers. I hope the law will not only assist the buyers and producers, but that it will also prevent the conference lines having all the say over the transport of South African produce. Information I received a few days ago shows that the penalty is continuing, in spite of the strong representations of the persons who refused to sign the contract. It is not in the best interests of the people who come to South Africa to buy wool, and it also damages the producers.

I heartily welcome this Bill, because if there is one thing that we require, it is the stabilization of freights. In the past merchants have been losing a considerable amount of money, but it is not a fact, as stated by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), that their losses have been passed on to the consumer. At one time we had a rate of freight of 10s., which went up to 35s., with the result that the importer suffered a severe loss. I would like to pay a tribute to the Union-Castle Company. We must recognize that they have done very good work for the development of this country. During the war period they were of very great assistance, and, generally speaking, very few companies would have invested the money they have. As to the composition of this board, I am inclined to think that there are too many members. If you had a board with fewer members you would have more efficient work. As to the cost, it has been suggested that the members of this board will probably be paid £1,500 or £2,000 each. I do not think it is necessary to pay them such an amount. The hon. member for Benoni is always shouting about State shipping, but I do not think the conservative element on the Government side would consider such a proposal. In other parts of the world there have been enormous losses in connection with State shipping. Take Australia, which lost no less than £13,000,000, while Canada, in one year, lost 729,000 dollars, and in the course of several years its loss on State shipping was no less than 114,764,000 dollars. I submit that it is not in the interests of the consumers, because, after all, taxation must be levied, and the result is that it is against the consumer’s interests. There has been a very big loss on shipping in the United States since 1916, and how a young country like this can go in for State shipping with any hope of success I cannot see. My hon. friend has stated that Lord Kylsant had the audacity to come to this country and take the chair at a big conference of merchants in South Africa. That is no reason why he should be attacked in connection with this Bill. It cannot be doubted that Lord Kylsant is one of the leading authorities in the world in shipping, and it is an honour to be represented by him. I welcome this Bill, but I implore the Minister not to pay the extortionate salaries which are sometimes fixed in connection with new Government appointments.

If the hon. the Minister has any inclination towards State shipping, I think his colleague, the Minister of Finance, will exercise a salutary influence upon him. I think a measure of this sort is needed to protect a large part of the community that is largely unprotected at present. Even this Bill does not go as far as I would like it to go in protecting the producing portion of the community. I allude to the farmers. I see it is contemplated that there will be only one member representing farmers. It is true that the Government has the power of appointing three other members, and if they exercise that power judiciously I think that they will see that the agricultural interest is well represented. How few of us realize that when wool is sent from South Africa to London it is the farmer who pays every penny of the freight. It is the same thing with mealies, and surely the farmers are interested in seeing that they get reasonable terms. Again I do not see how it will work satisfactorily with regard to industries. I can imagine that a representative of industries, if he represents manufacturers, will consider it to his interest to see that raw materials come in at as low a rate as possible, and on the other hand that manufactured goods come in at a high rate. The consumer’s interests, too, do not seem to be adequately represented on the board. I notice that this board is charged with the duty of reporting to the Minister on any matter relating to transport. A great deal of stress is laid on freights, but I think that the word “fares” might also be introduced with advantage. It is of great importance in a country like this that there should be the cheapest form of communication with the outside world, whether by letters or telegrams or rates of passage. If you take the index figure as 100 before the war for ordinary fares between this country and England, to-day this figure of 100 would be increased to no less than 220. That matter wants looking into, because there is no doubt that the country is at a great disadvantage if the fares are high. Whatever board is appointed, they will be given no statutory power, and their influence and usefulness will depend on the weight they carry, and the weight they carry will depend on the personnel. I hope the hon. the Minister will see that the board is composed of as weighty members of the community as possible, and that the particular interests I have mentioned will not be neglected. I also urge that they be given the duty of inquiring into the matter of fares as well as freights.

As far as this Bill is concerned there is no doubt I cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley).

You may not be allowed to.

The hon. member who has just interjected is very experienced as far as that is concerned, because I understand he sat in another House in the Transvaal for many years, and did not open his mouth because he was afraid to speak. It is not a question in my case of not being allowed. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Benoni would mean delaying this particular Bill, if it were passed, and the hon. member knows as well as I do that it is impossible to get a safe line of steamers at present, or even within the next few years. He has got to do a tremendous amount of work before he can get this House to bring in a Bill for the establishment of a State line of steamers. That is the reason why I am going to vote in favour of the Bill, and against the amendment, even at the risk of having my vote on this question used against me by former friends. I shall not vote against the amendment because we on this side of the House are any less concerned than hon. members on the other side with the abolition of the evils of private enterprise in this particular direction. We had been prepared right through to play the game up to the hilt, but Labour members opposite know that it is impossible to carry the amendment even with the support of every member and ex-member of the Labour party. Under the circumstances, and as an attempt is made in the measure to do something immediately, I am going to vote for the Bill and against the amendment.

The Minister in charge of the Bill is a lawyer and he should know that the measure will achieve nothing except to confer on the board the power to hold inquisitions. Will the Minister be prepared to accept an amendment to the effect that all recommendations made by the board will be placed on the Table? The Minister remains silent because he will use only the recommendations which suit him best, but the others he will keep tip his sleeve. I am suspicious that there is something at the back of this measure. I foresee that, within twelve months, should the Minister continue to occupy his present position, there Will be a complement to this Bill, and it will be said openly that when the Minister introduced this measure he had something at the back of his mind. The members of the board will have to be paid probably £1,500 or £2,000 a year.

Nonsense.

The Bill is a futile one, for the board will do nothing.

Although the Bill is a very innocuous one, it may perhaps do a little good, as it will give the Government some information as to the manner in which the conference lines have been exploiting the needs of the consumers arid the producers. When members of the South African party denounce the Bill as an interference with private enterprise, it is clear that they are very much behind the times All these old theories that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is so fond of, are things of the past; the hon. member is still living in the nineteenth century. Industry is beginning to realize that if it is to continue, it must meet the people half-way and submit to a certain measure of Government control. Shipping is a key industry, and can so exploit the consumer as to make agriculture fail or succeed by the charges the shipping companies can impose. Shipping rings can determine whether agricultural produce can be exported at a profit to the grower, and whether the articles necessary for agriculture can be imported at a rate which the farmer can afford to pay, and so on with other industries. Although the Australian line has gone out of existence as a State line, even Mr. Bruce, the Prime Minister of Australia, admitted that the effect of the existence of the State lines of ships was to benefit the public. If industries are not to be taken over by the Government, it is necessary that they should meet the State half-way. The Minister himself does not go half-way, for he simply appoints an advisory board. That is one reason why I support the amendment. We know perfectly well that very powerful speeches were made and that some very strong documents were issued by the Government threatening the conference lines with all sorts of penalties. They have gradually dwindled down into an agreement between the Government and the shipping lines and into this measure to get information and advice as to the machinations of the conference lines. I do not see any reason why this House should depart from the resolution accepted in 1925. I remember the Minister of Labour dealt with the question speaking at Vereeniging, and he is reported in the “Rand Daily Mail” in October, 1925, to have said that he would like, next session, to see State shipping embarked on. Surely there has not been a change since 1925 that this House should not continue to accept that principle and continue to press for giving effect to it? The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) got up this afternoon, and I think it is a pity that because we sit on opposite sides we should express different views on such matters. I am sure that in 1925 he agreed with the principles enunciated by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). He suggests that because there is no hope of the amendment being carried that it should not be brought forward. That is not the way to progress. All the advance that has been made has been made by continued propaganda and effort in spite of difficulties and obstacles and more and more people have been converted to that principle. To-day we are twitted with the suggestion that we are only doing this in order to make party capital. Well, I suppose almost every debate, whether consciously or unconsciously, is carried out with the object of one party or another making capital in order to convert the public to their point of view. I am sure there is nothing wrong in our attitude. The hon. member for Brakpan also accuses us of bringing forward this amendment in order to put him and his friends in the wrong. He is harping again on his analogy of the other night about the “Old Adam.” I would advise him to confine himself to frothy verbiage, of which he is a master and leave analogies alone, as he is often very unfortunate with his analogies. For instance, in referring to the split in the Labour party recently he applied the analogy of the rabbit pie, suggesting that his section were the horse and we were the rabbit. Very well, we are the genuine article and they are the horse—or the donkey. And now he accuses us of being the old Adam. We accept the charge. We on these benches are the men of the party, and they on the Creswellian benches are the old women. But even Eve complained of the serpent, while these old women are so in the toils of the lizard that they do not even complain.

The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is taking rather too seriously the resolution which was agreed to in March, 1925. He refers to very strong speeches that were made. I find in “Hansard” there was only one speech, and that was by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). He held forth in his usual way about the advantages of State ownership and so forth. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) seconded the motion without making a speech at all and the only speech made in reply was that of the Minister. All the resolution said was that the Government should take into consideration the advisability of instituting a State service. Of course, nothing happened and the Minister now is not going to give it any more consideration than he then, and I think he is quite wise. The Minister’s Bill seems to have had a rather mixed reception. Some members have welcomed it and some have rather damned it with faint praise. Personally, I cannot see much in it. I cannot see it gives the Government much more power, and I am not sure it would be desirable to give them more power. The Government at any time can form an advisory body by going to each of the associations and asking them to appoint representatives for a conference. It seems to me that would be a much simpler and cheaper form of organization. The Minister says now he is going to have a board with Government members on it and in the majority. If that is so, what is the good of the board at all? I really do not see what this board is going to do or what powers they have got. I suppose the Minister will say their representations would carry weight. While I sympathize with the Minister’s object, I am not at all sure whether, if I had anything to do with a shipping company, I would not say: “physician, heal thyself.” Something might be done to cheapen transport. We know that rates are kept at a level because the Government resort to a policy which admittedly makes the ratio of expenditure to revenue on the railways extremely high. We know that charges at the ports, in some cases, are enormous. Cases have come to my knowledge in which the charges at Cape Town are higher than at ports where the work has to be done by lighters. Those are matters to which the Government can well attend. I see by the papers that people who export coal from Durban complain of the want of trucks, and that the freights are too high. If the Government want to appoint a board, let them reorganize the Railway Board and make it a nonpolitical body.

I always understood that hon. members opposite have been the particular advocates of commerce, but after hearing some of these hon. members they seem to be very much out of touch with commercial opinion. The executive of the chambers of commerce on November 13th wrote—

The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and others attack the whole principle. It is rather strange that they should do so now. Further the hon. member for Newlands attacks the Government because he says we take too great powers; but the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) says no powers are given to the Government and the whole thing would be futile.

I spoke for myself.

Hon. members on the other side usually do so. With regard to the powers taken in Section (3) (c) and (d), how does the hon. member for Newlands suggest that the board will function unless they have the power to ask the shipping companies what their rates are? I ask him as a business man to consider how the board will act, unless they have official information. [Section (2) (c) and (d) read.] We do not ask these powers for the Government, but for the board. The hon. member confuses the board and the Government. It rather appeared as if the hon. member was putting up a special plea for those importers who have been contravening the law and have been given rebates; was that perhaps what is in the mind of the hon. member? If the ship-owners have nothing to hide from the board, why should they not give full information? I may say that the majority of the shipping companies have freely given that information in the past, and I do not expect that they will refuse it in the future. It is difficult to know what the hon. member for Newlands had in mind when he raised his objection to these very necessary powers for the board. He wants to have it both ways. He said that if the Government had come and asked for real action to be taken, it would have been a different story.

No.

The hon. member asked, “What does this Bill mean? Is it of no value to-day.” But when some years ago the Government came forward with a Bill to protect the interests of importers and exporters in a far more comprehensive manner, what support did we get from that side? None at all. The attitude of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is really surprising. He seems to have a very short memory and he forgets the part he played in 1906 when he attended a conference in London and with Mr. Hosken, who represented the Transvaal, put forward a draft Bill at that conference. Will he deny that that Bill which I hold in my hand and which has been published is far more stringent than the one we are now considering? I will give the hon. member some tit-bits from his little Bill. The hon. member wanted to imprison those who contravened the terms of the Act; he also wanted, under certain circumstances, to prevent the removal of merchandise from the docks. The hon. member also wanted to take powers to arrest ships if they did not fulfil and charge the rates laid down, and yet now he says, “Heaven save us from Government interference.” He has changed his views.

Certainly I have in that regard.

We are making progress. There is this bogie set up by hon. members opposite about Government interference. Let me say that the need for a measure of this kind is very much felt by the general public. Some hon. members opposite have shown that they are totally out of touch with the needs of the community. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) supported the Bill, and even went so far as to say that he would prefer something stronger. Well, he is evidently better informed. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) made a remarkable statement. He said-

I would ask the hon. member for Newlands to consult the wool shippers, and if he does so he will then have quite a different story to tell. He cannot have it both ways. The farmers, industrialists and the business community are asking for the appointment of this board. Then we have the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) commending this Bill in a lukewarm manner. In the course of his remarks he said—

That is the attitude against which this side of the House protests—that the affairs of South Africa should be controlled from London. Years ago I told the representative of the Union-Castle Company that the time had come when the venue in regard to shipping matters should be South Africa. But members on the other side are dissatisfied. What they want is London first, and South Africa a bad second. I would ask them if there is any reason why the shipping companies in London should not appoint a responsible man with full powers in South Africa to manage their affairs. The conference lines will have to recognize that the venue of all our future negotiations will not be London, but South Africa.

They have got no brains in London.

A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, you ruled that the word “stupid” used in respect to an hon. member was out of order; consequently I will not say anything further regarding the remark just made by the hon. member opposite. The hon. member went on to say that the shipping interests should be represented on this board. I do not agree. They are quite able to look after themselves. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) was quite right there. Now I come to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) who on the whole opposed this Bill. I would ask him whether if it is necessary in the interests of importers and exporters in this country to have a shipping board of this kind, it should not be established? In this regard I would again refer the hon. member to his attitude in 1906. This board will deal with questions as they arise. It will be a live body, a responsible body, and it will act in the interests of the whole of South Africa. The hon. member also said that if this board is appointed there is a danger of eliminating shipping competition. Surely the hon. member knows that action of this kind will not eliminate competition, but encourage it.

What I said was, that legislation like this tends to eliminate competition.

Well I will take it at that. The hon. member also referred to certain representations which I received from the representatives of the chambers of commerce. I gladly admit that valuable information was given to me, but I found after consultation with those gentlemen that it is very necessary to educate them in regard to the manner in guarding the interests of South Africa. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) knows that we concluded an agreement with the conference lines as favourable to South Africa as any Government could have secured. He has suggested that we should have an officer of the railways as a full member of the board. Well, I do not altogether agree, because I do not think it would be desirable to have a servant of the State on the board as an ordinary member. I now come to the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). The hon. member very fully discussed the shipping position during the last few years, and he said many things with regard to it with which I think all of us are in agreement. The hon. member is, however, fully aware of the fact that we have just entered into an agreement with the Union-Castle Company on behalf of the conference lines, for ten years, with the power to revise the terms after five years. In view of that, it is not desirable to raise the bigger question he has raised this afternoon? I think the hon. member will agree with me—

I do not agree with you.

I am sorry, but it is my view, that it is undesirable for us to deal with the bigger question just now. The most onerous conditions have been imposed, involving capital expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

That is all out of profits.

That may be, but the Union-Castle Company and the conference lines have had to re-build some of their ships and provide considerable refrigerating space, and that has cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds. With regard to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), who asked, why we should have this advisory board at all, hon. members will recollect his fulminations against the Perishable Products Export Control Board. Will he repeat them now? No. He would not dare to do so. When the hon. member today prophesies that this board will be futile, I say that his prophecy is as wrong as that which he uttered a few years ago when he and his friends fought us in night sittings with regard to the Perishable Products Export Control Board.