I move—

seconded.

I do not propose to object to the report at all, but it must have been very obvious to all concerned that there was no time to go thoroughly into these matters as such an important subject deserves. You cannot leave the thing in the air. There are only two alternatives. The first is not likely to commend itself either to the Government or to the Opposition, seeing that everyone has made up his mind to an early general election, and one alternative is that the House might sit on until we can give legislative effect to the result of the evidence received by the select committee. The other is that the Minister should ask the House to agree to the select committee being appointed as a commission. I suggest that, in all seriousness. It is admitted, on all hands, that this is a most serious subject, and yet we have no means of reaching finality, but to-day we are able to get people who know the thing thoroughly and we may be able to thrash out a conclusion. There is positive danger in delay, and that is why I make this suggestion, because by means of it we shall obviate delay. When the next Parliament comes back it will have ready for it the commission’s investigation and report, and it then can operate upon that investigation and report as it thinks fit. I am not going to move it, but I do suggest that the Minister takes into serious consideration the desirability and advisability of the committee resolving into a commission.

I rise to support the hon. member. The subject matter of this committee is one of vital importance to a very large section of the Witwatersrand. It is very regrettable that the Government did not take the matter into consideration long before this session. I believe the mine workers on the Witwatersrand have made representations from time to time. Unfortunately the time allowed by this session was not sufficient to deal effectively with the matter. The future member for Brakpan, the present member for Springs (Mr. Allen), indicated that such a committee would have to deal, not only with the administration of the Act, but also with the whole method of payment to mine workers and also those beneficiaries who lose their jobs and must seek other employment. It was a matter of some surprise when the select committee was set up to find that the burning desire of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Fordham) to have something done in the matter was not followed out by the committee. I support the suggestion of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) that the Minister should show his sincerity in the matter by definitely appointing a commission immediately to deal with it, so that when Parliament meets again they can proceed on the finding of that commission. We want a commission appointed of people who will be able to learn something about the matter and to apply themselves to it thoroughly. I hope the Minister will take the suggestion into favourable consideration and show the mineworkers that it is the serious intention of the Government to do something for them.

I do not intend to discuss the merits of this report, Mr. Speaker, but I rise to put to you a point of order, or a point of procedure, as to whether it has not been the invariable procedure in the past for the evidence of any select committee to be printed when the select committee’s report is laid on the Table. It seems to me that practice has been invariably adopted, and there should be no departure from it at any time; the innovation that in this case the evidence is not to be published is one we should not lightly agree to, as an obvious injustice may be done to persons in the future by the non-publication of the evidence.

There have been cases where a committee has not been able to complete the evidence, and the evidence was not printed. The House may decide to print the evidence or not. It is entirely in the discretion of the House.

I want to deal as briefly as I can with the cheap sneers slung at myself by the hon. member for Troyeville, and the suggestion that a commission should be appointed. I would be prepared to see a commission being appointed if it was the genuine desire of hon. members on the cross benches to see useful work done on behalf of the sufferers from phthisis. I am perfectly convinced that it is not their desire; they themselves are responsible for the committee not being able to do effective work.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it in order for an hon. member to suggest to this House that hon. members desire something for making the work ineffective?

The hon. member must refrain from imputing motives.

I am sorry that the same thing is not applicable to those on that side [the cross benches]. I introduced an unopposed motion to set up that committee, but because the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) was not satisfied that I should be the mover, he opposed that motion, and he is directly responsible for something like a month’s delay in connection with that matter. What is the position if a commission or a committee of any description is set up under this particular Government? The majority will be just as busy as they can be with the election campaign, which is just as applicable to hon. members on the cross benches over there. Effective work will not be done by setting up a commission of this description in a time of electioneering. I am perfectly satisfied that had my motion been allowed to go through without the obstinate tactics of the hon. member for Springs coming into operation, that work would have been done, a report brought before the House, and the work dealt with. The responsibility must rest with the hon. member and his colleagues on that side of the House. As far as I am personally concerned, I am possibly even more anxious to see effective work done for the sufferers of phthisis than our hon. friends over there, who seem to be more concerned in using these unfortunate victims purely for propaganda purposes.

I trust that this matter will be kept outside the arena of sectional politics. I have no knowledge of it at any previous time having been made a party matter, and I hope it will not be. I do not think either the mover or the supporter of the suggestion intend that the commission should consist of hon. members of this Assembly—it might be composed of any people who are peculiarly fitted to sit on it. While I am perfectly satisfied to leave the matter in the hands of the Minister, it is quite possible to accumulate as much matter as is obtainable in the interim for use as evidence. We have almost exhausted the old channels of investigation. Anyone who knows anything at all about the subject knows that what compensation is possible by way of payment has been thrashed out, and that any advance in the nature of financial compensation, whilst the mines are carried on as they are to-day, on the margin of profit they are yielding, is impossible. A wider field of investigation should be opened up. I want to pay a tribute, if I may, to the way in which the present Minister has faced the problem of phthisis during the time of his administration. I worked 15 years as a workman on these mines myself, so I know what the circumstances are. The Minister right throughout has been a friend of these people. I feel perfectly confident, having sat on that committee, that the mine workers will not lose anything by leaving the matter in the hands of the Minister.

With regard to the publication of the evidence, I have no strong feelings one way or the other. The select committee, which was representative of the whole House, reported unanimously that it thought it was inadvisable to publish the evidence. I am glad that the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) has such confidence in me that he thinks the matter ought to be left to my discretion. I feel this: that whatever grievances there are to-day, they have been notified to the select committee, because a lot of evidence on numerous questions and matters of importance, not only financial, have been laid before the committee, and every possible ground has been covered. Although the terms of reference were for an inquiry into the administration of the Miners’ Phthisis Act, 1925, every possible opportunity has been given to witnesses on behalf of the workers. The various bodies have brought before the committee every possible view, and they have not been limited or restricted in any way, and the promise I gave to the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) has been observed both in the letter and in the spirit. We feel, as a committee, that we should have evidence from the other side, especially on medical questions from the Medical Bureau, and on the question of finance and administration from the Phthisis Board. Then we must also give the Chamber of Mines an opportunity of laying their views before us. I do not think that further evidence is going to take very long; in fact, I think I am reflecting the feeling, not only of the present committee, but also that of the committee of 1925, when I say that what is wanted was not so much evidence as mutual consultation. If a commission were set up, you would have it working amid the din and feeling of a general election, and that is very undesirable. If people lead evidence before the election they will do so with a view to the election, but when the conflict is over, and the next hon. House has been consulted, evidence can be taken and the matter can be discussed after the fight, and in a much calmer atmosphere. I agree that this is a question that should be kept out of the arena of party politics. It is very important, and affects the working classes, and has to do with the very deplorable condition of large numbers of mine workers. Under these circumstances, I think it will be advisable to leave the appointment of a select committee to the new House, and then it can discuss every possible view and report to the next House in a much calmer spirit, after evidence has been given under much more specific circumstances.

On a point of order, may I raise the question of the non-publication of the report and evidence?

No, the hon. member can raise it to-morrow, when the matter is discussed.

Will it make our hair stand on end?

Not in view of the losses on the suburban lines.

I move—

I want to say that my action towards this Bill the other evening was not due to anything quixotic, or that I wanted advertisement. It was the only way I had of drawing attention strongly to the fact that this private Bill was being rushed through at a tremendous rate, and that Pretorians should awaken to the fact, if they wished for equity. I had received information from my constituents in Pretoria West, who are largely concerned in this Bill, because, as workers, excesses in expenditure will have to be borne by them. They write that they “are in the unfortunate position of not having money to send down a barrister to fight the Bill,” and ask me to get a suspension until the new Parliament meets, urging that such a far-reaching and important Bill ought not to be taken just at the end of this session. I think that is a legitimate request. I need not remind members that we had placed upon our desks a select committee report, and there was not time to go into that report before the Bill was upon us, and we were urged to carry it from stage to stage as quickly as possible. The chairman of the Pretoria Ratepayers Association writes me—

The combined federation of ratepayers affected are totally opposed to this scheme. Had I simply been wishing unnecessarily to hold up the Bill until the session ended, I would have to make apology to this House. I suppose I do owe hon. members an apology in one sense, because we had a black Friday, and members had their dinner hour docked; but I did not suppose that temerity on my part on opposing the Government on a private measure would bring about a general punishment of hon. members. It is extraordinary that public business should be deliberately pushed aside to put through this private Bill. Why should a private Bill, even from an important centre and capital city like Pretoria, be given precedence over urgent public business? It is said that one Minister is taking an extremely active interest in this Bill. Why? What is the reason for the action in regard to opposing the Bill that has been taken? Merely to hold it up for four months at most. Parliament will meet again in July, and during the short interval the whole question could be gone into more thoroughly. Sufficient evidence has not been taken. Why all this hurry? Does the Government not believe that it will be back in four months’ time? Is that the reason why this private Bill must be pushed through now at any cost? If that is so, if the Government think that this is the only chance of putting it through, it is in itself an admission that it should be further considered. I remind the hon. Minister who is reported to be so interested in this Bill of what his colleague has suffered in regard to Doornkop. Not that his honour is) touched any more than that of the other Minister. There is no question attaching to the honour and integrity of the Minister, but only a question of the commercial ability he exercized in regard to the people’s business. At the same time, we do not want to see any more Doornkop enquiries arising out of lack of business ability. Pretoria has not yet seen the evidence which was laid before the select committee on the Bill. One reason which has been given for all this undue haste is that a pledge has been made to the iron and steel industry that sufficient water will be found for its requirements. I believe, however, from very well-informed sources, that the German contractors will not be able to supply the equipment for the iron and steel works and have it erected and running for at least three years, so they cannot be in such a hurry to have this water supply. Further, it has been agreed that the industry will be supplied with 2,000,000 gallons a day of the sewage effluent, which is quite suitable and innocuous, and will tide them over any period which may elapse before any new water supply is provided. There has been a good deal of argument in Pretoria why the scheme proposed should be pushed on. When the Hartebeestpoort dam was constructed, at the cost of £1,250,000, it was claimed to be an insurance to Pretoria that it would be able to get a permanent water supply. It is obvious that agricultural settlements below the dam could not possibly pay the interest on £1,250,000 by any crops and farming carried on because of it, and an amount was agreed upon which Pretoria should pay for water from Hartebeestpoort. We have no evidence to show that the dam could not be enlarged so as to meet the demands both of the agriculturalists and of Pretoria. It is an extraordinary thing that although Pretoria had always been looking to Hartebeestpoort for water, a veto was suddenly imposed, thus allowing the bringing forward of other water schemes. But for that veto we should have heard nothing of this deplorable profit-making and graft. The “Volkstem,” a newspaper of standing, published at Pretoria, referring to the Minister of Agriculture first imposing and then removing his veto, says—

The scheme at its best is but a stop-gap. Even if this scheme goes through, another supply will ultimately have to be found. Is it fair, under those circumstances, to carry through this scheme which will cost the ratepayers of Pietoria £600,000, £200,000 of which will represent profits to some persons and £17,000 commission? What rights do the vendors sell at such an immense price? A cartoon in “Ops Vaderland,” published at Pretoria, shows Pretoria taking dolomite water from a tank and the promoters of the scheme putting another pump into the same water area. Then comes the logical argument that if one pump can pump 1,000,000 gallons a day, two pumps can pump double the quantity. In the dolomite it is impossible to know the extent of the source the water comes from, and the “rights” sold to Pretoria at such an immense price are merely surface rights, almost valueless in themselves. Previously I showed that Johannesburg, which had been sold in the same way to the extent of over a million sterling, ultimately had to go to the Vaal River for its water. If this Bill is passed, the Administrator of the Transvaal is to be asked to sanction the necessary capital being raised. When the borrowing has to take place the questions can be debated, but by then we should be absolutely committed to the whole scheme. My contention is that the council carrying the trust of the ratepayers of Pretoria should go to the people and lay all the cards on the table, and tell the people frankly all that has taken place, and produce further evidence to show the ratepayers of Pretoria that they are getting full value for their money. I am with those who want every town to control its own services. That is socialism pure and simple, and one is entirely in favour of a socialistic policy in regard to public services. Therefore, as far as that principle is concerned, I have no opposition to offer. I will read one of many published letters which have been appearing from men who have studied the scheme, and which go to show how like the unfortunate Doornkop settlement it is. This letter is signed by Mr. W. A. Forbes—

In passing. I may say that no evidence, except a short and very guarded report from the present head of the irrigation department, has been laid before the people of Pretoria. I merely read that letter as being one of very many appearing on behalf of the unconsidered ratepayers. You can see how men who wish to get their schemes through, recklessly use the names of men who would not possibly take up propositions unless they were satisfied they were sound in all their bearings. I congratulate Mr. Schlesinger in not having anything to do with it. I think it is very reprehensible that his name should have been used in the interests of vendors and I was glad to read in the House the telegram in which he repudiated any connection. This is one of those far-reaching schemes that would be better for a little further consideration. No harm would be done by holding it up for a short four months. On the contrary, it would allow Pretoria to see that it got the best ultimate value for its money and not something foisted upon it just for the moment, As Verneuk Pan is now to be called Bluebird Pan and the word “verneuk”is therefore available, I would suggest to the hon. member in charge of the Bill that he should adopt it and call Rietfontein “Verneukfontein.” I move as an amendment—

You will see that is not killing the Bill. It is simply a provision, and a very wise one, that the Bill be suspended to afford an opportunity of considering it again with fuller information available.

I second the amendment, not because I wish to in any way let it be thought I am condemning this scheme, but because I do think that in all the circumstances it is a pre-eminently reasonable method. I make bold to assert that not one-twentieth of the membership of this House knows anything at all about this scheme, and I think it is a very interesting commentary upon the haphazard way in which Parliament is at times prepared to do its business, that it is contemplating the third reading of this Bill and seriously contemplating the passing of this Bill without any knowledge before it whatever. I know of no matter down through the ages that has afforded more opportunity for money making, large chunks of unearned increment, than this dealing with the municipal and other communal water supplies. I feel sure that statement will be re-echoed in the mind and breast of every member in this House. Right down we find private people for their own game have managed to corner the sources of water supply to the community, and held it up to ransom. Because it is the most vital thing that concerns the population, it is considered fair game. It is for that reason, and that reason only, that I support the amendment, because I want to know, as a member of this House— I owe it to myself, to my constituents, and to the whole country, to be placed in possession of all the facts. I was very much struck with my hon. friend’s reading of the communication from the chairman of the Ratepayers’ Association of Pretoria.

That is wrong; if you will listen to my explanation—

That is unfortunate. I have to make my speech without the explanation of the hon. member. But I would rather accept the statement of my hon. friend here (Mr. Hay) than the anticipated statement of my hon. friend there.

It is the Pretoria West Ratepayers’ Association.

It was a very important announcement made by my hon. friend here of a man who takes sufficient interest in public affairs to be the chairman of a ratepayers association in Pretoria. The man on the spot does not know the pros—he knows the cons —of this matter. I challenge every hon. member, except the hon. member who introduced it and the Minister of Agriculture, who is taking a great interest in the water supply of Pretoria, to say he knows anything about it. I refuse to have my judgment bound by someone else, and I want to make my own judgment. It is for that reason, in the interests of the community of Pretoria, in the interests of the thing, and, unfortunately, hundreds of years of experience, that we want to postpone further consideration of the matter and get information from all points of view.

The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) wants to know why this measure should be hurried through the House. There is some reason in that remark, for it is exceptionally unfortunate that the House has reached this stage in its life when it is about to adjourn.

It will re assemble in July.

Hon. members on all sides of the House have received telegrams from the mayor and councillors of Pretoria with reference to the exceptional urgency of the matter. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) is not a ratepayer of Pretoria, and he has not suffered the inconvenience of continual shortages of water.

That is no reason why you should not give information.

There is no citizen of Pretoria who does not desire that this question should be settled once and for all. It is not desirable that this apple of discord should again be thrown into the arena of municipal politics. I know of no resolution of any ratepayers’ association such as that mentioned by the hon. member; rather is it the private opinion of the chairman of that association, and his objections are based on this reason alone, that he is in favour of Pretoria taking up water from the Hartebeestpoort dam. I admit that Pretoria was disappointed when that scheme failed, but it has been definitely turned down, and it is no good trying to go back on it. No Government would consent to Pretoria taking water from the dam. Then the hon. member raised the question of the Government veto on the taking of water from the Hennops River, water which does eventually flow into the dam. The Government called in its own experts, and they agreed that the water taken for the Pretoria scheme would not in any appreciable way affect the flow into the dam. This is where the hon. member is unfair. However, if the Government find in future that the water from the Hennops River is appreciably affecting the flow into the dam, it can, under the provisions of the Act, protect its own interests. The hon. member is not genuinely criticizing the scheme, but is throwing a smoke screen over the whole matter and making a last hit at the constituency which has dismissed him. He would like to characterize it as a verneuk scheme. May I rather characterize the hon. member’s speech as a verneuk speech? I do not know if this hon. House is aware that every argument the hon. member for Pretoria West has used in opposition to the scheme has been heard by us in Pretoria a thousand times over. I hope the House will vote the amendment down, and vote in favour of the Bill.

It is only a formal amendment in the Afrikaans version on page 29, Clause 30.

The Bill is not even here.

I had anticipated being able to complete my remarks when I last spoke, so that I have very little to add. I should just like to refer to the fact that it is apparent that the supporters of this amendment have at least one other able supporter in this House. I see that at a meeting of railwaymen, held at the week-end, at which the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) presided, that meeting practically endorsed every item in this amendment. Although the hon. member for Hanover Street has not indicated his intentions, having presided at a meeting of that nature, I take it that he will naturally give his support to the amendment before the House. If he does not do so, it will be very difficult for me to discriminate as to what constitutes a friendly or a hostile action inside or outside this House. It seems to me that if it is not permissible for an hon. member to advocate in this House certain concessions to railway employees, whilst the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) can advocate these reforms outside the House, and for the former (the mover of the amendment) to be regarded as guilty of an unfriendly act while the latter is not unfriendly, then I must say the premises upon which we are judged are mysterious. I cannot see any difference between the action of the two hon. members for Umbilo and Hanover Street, unless it is permissible to say a thing outside the House, and to act contrariwise inside the House. Had we put forward these measures which we are advocating to-day, and at the same time said that we would lend all the support we could to the sending back to the Cabinet of the three gentlemen who are there at present professing to represent Labour, then there would have been no criticism whatever of our actions with regard to the measures we are to-day advocating. We will leave it to those people who would be affected by the reforms we have incorporated in the amendment if they were carried into effect to adjudicate as to whether our advocacy of these measures in the House is mere political jerrymandering, or whether they have been honestly put forward for the benefit of the people and the country.

The hon. member who has just sat down did not inform me before he spoke that he was going to attack me, and, unfortunately, I have not heard what he has said. I understand, however, that he has attacked me for inconsistency. The hon. member does not seem to know that for years past I have often been asked to take the chair at meetings of public servants and railwaymen. The hon. member suggested that I supported certain resolutions outside the House which I will not support here. I do not, of course, necessarily bind myself by presiding at a meeting of public servants to agree with all the resolutions they put forward. This particular meeting was a meeting called under the N.U.R.A.H,’s, and I have no desire to say that I am not entirely in favour of what they ask for, but I differ from hon. members who are supporting this amendment because of their tactics. They are moving a resolution which is a motion of no-confidence. I am not prepared to vote for a motion of no-confidence in the Government, and to bring back a South African party Government, but I am prepared to vote on each measure on its merits. This amendment is a covert attack on the Government, which, if carried, would mean their resignation. When you refuse appropriation to a Government, it is the most effective form of no-confidence you can adopt. For that reason I am not prepared to vote for the amendment in its present form, though, on its merits, I will go a long way with it. My speech last night was not reported, otherwise the hon. member would know that I told the railwaymen that they should take the long view, and while criticizing the Government for not fully carrying out the Hours of Duty Committee’s report, they should credit the Government with what has been done. The position is that we have to compare what happened from 1924 to 1929 with the position of the railwaymen in 1921, when the late Government was in power. In 1919 the Government introduced an eight hours’ day on the railway, but it was repealed very largely by Mr. Jagger in 1921.

Your facts are not very correct.

I will take no advice from the hon. member, because I know my facts are absolutely correct. If he is going to tell this House that Mr. Jagger did not do away with the eight hours day on the railways, then he will tell the House something the House knows to be incorrect. The House knows the facts, and the hon. member knows perfectly well that one of the reasons why the late Government was thrown out was because of this action as far as the railwaymen were concerned. In 1921 the Minister of Railways and Harbours practically undid the work of Mr. Burton in regard to the eight hours day, and it was in consequence of that that the railway vote went against the South African party Government throughout the Union. In 1924, when the new Government came into power, they appointed an Hours of Duty Committee which reported in 1925. The grievance of the railwaymen is that they thought the committee was more in the nature of a conciliation board, and when the board was unanimous its recommendations would be carried out. In 1926 the Government carried out a portion of the report, which cost the country £250,000 a year. The new concessions announced by the Minister a few days ago will cost the taxpayer £162,000 a year; so that the Government have given the railwaymen £412,000 a year. That is a very important matter. At present 66 per cent, of the railwaymen are working 48 hours or less per week, compared with 47 per cent. The number of men working in excess of 48 hours a week has been reduced from 53 per cent, to 34 per cent. So that under the late Government 19 per cent, more of the men were working more than 48 hours a week as compared with the present number. Then substantial improvements have been made in regard to European labourers, while about 1,200 men in the third grade will get relief under the new measures. There has also been a small improvement in regard to coloured labourers, and a concession of £65,000 a year has been made to the running staff in regard to booking on and off time. However, a substantial grievance still remains, so far as the ticket examiners, guards and station foremen are concerned, for although under the 1926 arrangement the ten-hour day of ticket examiners and guards was converted into a nine-hour day, some of the old main line guards maintain that they are worse off now than they were before the hours of duty report was carried into effect.

That cannot be, because there was a guarantee that the men should not be worse off.

A guard who had service in the Transvaal said he was better off under the old than under the new system. The matter should be enquired into; there may be some misunderstanding. The station foremen, with 12 hours a day, are worse off than all. I am not prepared to, vote for the motion, which is simply a motion of censure on the Government and a vote of no confidence. It would also be quite inconsistent with my vote on the “no-confidence” motion earlier in the session.

I would like to say a word to my sensitive friend. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) made no attack on him. All he did was gently, almost diffidently, to suggest that in view of the fact that the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) had seen fit to preside over a meeting of protest, there was just the possibility of getting his vote for our motion this afternoon. Perhaps the hon. hentieman’s conscience pricks him, but I forgot, I do not associate him with a conscience. I wonder what sort of tale he would preach if he were going to seek the suffrages of a railway constituency—a vastly different tale. I presume it would be the same sort of tale he preached last year when he proposed a motion condemning the Government for not having given effect to the Graham Commission’s scale of salaries for the civil servants. Was that a vote of no confidence? No, a proselyte or a convert is always the most enthusiastic. Can we see the mainspring of the hon. member’s action in the fact that he is definitely committed to opposing the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter)? I suppose, really, there is something in that. We beg leave to doubt the bona fides of his indignation this afternoon. It will be very interesting hearing to the railwaymen and civil servants, over whose meetings he has presided for so many years. I hope he will say, when he faces his constituents, that he does not bind himself to support their arguments, however much they may be based on conviction and rectitude. I do not often align myself with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), but in fairness it must be admitted that when he took over the control of the railways there was a big deficit; although I am not going to support his action, the position that prevailed then was by no means comparable with the position to-day. Then there was a huge deficit.

No.

I know all the factors in the case. You have precisely the same thing going on to-day. There is no difference in the financial methods. So within the limits of those financial methods you had a deficit when the hon. gentleman took over and you now have a surplus and a substantial one. Surely the argument that applied to the position when there was a deficit by no means applies to-day. It was frankly stated by the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Burton, that he had to make this 10 per cent, cut all round because of the parlous condition of the country. That is generally admitted. I took umbrage at it. I joined issue with the hon. gentleman, but still that is the general outlook on financial matters. That being so, there was justification in their minds for the hon. gentleman’s action, but there is no justification for the present Minister’s non action. What is the position? The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) the proselyte, is becoming an apostle. He says that because this Hours of Duty Committee sat upon this question and because they were unanimous, that on the points on which they were unanimous these men claimed the concessions should be granted to them. I take it my hon. friend does not agree with that?

I do agree with that.

Then why oppose this?

Because it is a vote of no confidence.

The hon. gentleman will talk until he is blue in the face, but he will not attempt to get it for the men.

That is very cheap.

I have watched with interest the political career of the hon. gentleman. He has been a regular “Jack-on-both-sides.”

I am not on your side, that is why you are angry.

No one will let him bowl down the wickets. He can get as many runs as he likes for the side he happens to advocate, but the side he advocates to-day there is no absolute guarantee he will be advocating tomorrow. The Hours of Duty Committee, when it considered all these matters, took everything into consideration, and it must not be forgotten that the committee was composed of representatives of the administration and the men. They took into consideration every aspect of the question. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) will agree that is so. We fought most strenuously to get that report, and the Minister will give me the credit for having done so on other occasions. So there is nothing inconsistent. I am not a Hanover Street representative. The committee took the financial aspects into consideration, and the financial condition of the railways then was by no means so good as it is now. The result was that the very clearly justified desire and anticipation of the men was doomed to disappointment and we are equally disappointed with these men. When does the hon. member propose to take some action to bring it into effect? The hon. member is a pastmaster in the art of talking.

I am very glad I have drawn your fire.

Is it scorching you? We want the man who is earnest and sincere in his desire to accomplish something—not talk. The hon. member will never emulate the accomplishments of his great prototype of the past. It is one of our own disappointments on behalf of the railwaymen and as a matter of our own policy that the Minister, when he found himself on two occasions in possession of a substantial surplus, did not see fit to give effect to the Hours of Duty Committee’s report in any respect whatever. Now the hon. member spreads himself on this £400,000 a year. The concessions to these men, he says, amount to £400,000 a year. But supposing they do, is the hon. member, are members on that side, is the Minister—I think he is and I shall challenge him on that—satisfied that because he has given this large amount of £400,000 in the aggregate to the men engaged in running the transport business of this country, it is a sufficient ground for men being asked to work for 3s. a day? We had the hon. Minister, in reply to a question, stating definitely there were white labourers on the railways of this country working for the miserable wage of 3s. a day, and that for 60 hours a week. And the hon. member says it costs £400,000 a year. Then let him take a reduction too in his fees, if that is the case. We heard during the war of Great Britain becoming a C3 nation. We are fast becoming a 26th nation here in South Africa. We are laying down a standard of life which you have no right to ask any barbarous man in the world to live upon. As these men rightly said at their meeting, while this Government is paying a miserable wage of 3s. a day to its own employees, it is interfering in the business of outside people and insisting upon their paying a wage much more commensurate with the requirements of civilization. Is the Minister proud of the fact that he is paying 3s. a day? Out of the £400,000 he is going to raise the 5s. a day men to 5s. 6d. They cannot get enough food to live on out of that amount. What sort of mentality are you creating? Just as the environment is, so is the product. Just as you build restrictive influences round a man, so is that man restricted in his mental outlook and his physical condition. He could not even clothe himself on such a wage. It is a most damning indictment of our present civilization that here in South Africa, with a democratic Government, we are prepared to face with equanimity a miserable wage of 5s. 6d. a day or even as low as 3s. on the state railways. It leaves one aghast that such a thing is contemplated with seriousness. What did you give to the coal-owners? What did the Minister do for them? He reduced the rates more than £400,000. It meant so much more in their pockets. We are particularly hurt that the Government which got in on the support of the Labour movement, the backbone of which is the trade union movement, has not seen fit yet to remove the embargo placed on the 1914 strikers. The hon. gentleman thankfully accepted office owing to the 1922 strike, and plumed himself on representing South Africa in a Governmental capacity, because that strike turned the country definitely against the South African party. Was it not because they thought they would get justice and get some consideration for the point of view they held? Was it because they dreamt for a moment that the Government would not be sympathetic at least, with those men who had suffered for what they believed to be right? I am afraid they are a very much disappointed and a disillusioned set of people. There is the great trade union principle of each day standing by itself, about which I fought with him. That was taken away by my hon. friend. It is a damning indictment of the Government, and an extraordinary reflection on the sympathetic outlook of the Minister on trade union principles and aspirations. It is an age-old trade union aspiration on which strikes in England have been fought over and over again.

It was recommended by the committee.

Is the hon. gentleman going to take refuge behind that when he knows that it is absolutely and completely repugnant, not only to the views of trade unionists, but every Labour man sitting on this side to-day? It is indicative of the hope Labour can get from that side from its so-called representatives. They are compelled by the cry of a vote of no-confidence to vote against their principles, desires and certainly their inclinations. That brings me to the point that if the Minister accepts that part of the committee’s report, will he accept the rest? Be logical. I know our caucus as a whole, in the united party, was constantly urging on the Minister, through his colleagues, our representatives in the Cabinet, that full acknowledgment and concessions should be made to these recommendations, and particularly, each day standing by itself. I never had a harder task, when I accepted aggregate Cabinet responsibility, than going against my own principles and belief, and endeavouring to induce the representatives of the Nurahs accepting the principle of each day not standing by itself. That is why I can speak with such feeling”. The Minister, in answer to a question asked him from this side the other day, talked about the Appeal Board—the supremest farce that ever existed in the railway department. I challenge him to give me one instance where punishment has been meted out to a railway servant, the matter came before the appeal board, and it reversed the judgment.

What are you talking about?

I have had representations made to me by a member of the appeal board, not on the Administration’s but on the men’s side, who told me that where the board had made a unanimous recommendation for mitigation, realizing that the punishment was out of all proportion to the crime, on the appeal being referred to the proper authority, it was sent to the general manager, who turned it down, so much so, that they are contemplating asking the Minister to abolish the appeal board. To one thing I must take exception, which is, that in response to a query from the South African party side, with regard to the stationmaster at Hillcrest station, the Minister said he deprecated such questions, and he used the expression “a tendency to undermine the authority of the office.” It astounded me, and many other hon. members. Is this the army? What on earth do you mean?

A business.

And are not those engaged in that business men? We are rapidly reaching the age of dictators. You have a dictator in Spain, and you have another in Italy. Now we are getting them here.

We had one in the post office.

Ah, you had a benevolent despot there. Under the guise of democracy we have even a worse dictator than any of them, who says, “How dare you men bring matters up before members of Parliament, and get them to ask questions like these?” The Minister sacks men for the most trivial offences. You discharge men from the railway service, who have many years of faithful service, for the most trivial offences. We cannot tolerate it. If our appeals are of no avail, you must dread the dictum of the electors. Let the Minister deal with all these cases on their merits.

I will.

Do listen to the appeals, and give a more sympathetic hearing to these people, people such as those over whom the member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) presided with such telling effect. If you do not do so, then watch out for the verdict of the electorate. I am certain that the Government is riding for a fall. I believe that the railwaymen will stand it no longer, and that they are now convinced that they can hope for nothing. What concessions have they got? Sixpence a day for poor labourers! I am not in favour of a South African party Government——

No Government at all.

Oh, yes, my own. Under the South African party railway administration, when engine drivers had been in the first class for five years, they became entitled automatically to a special class. Now I believe the period has been increased to 15 years. It has been stated to me that they are worse off under this democratic Government than they were under the South African party Government. That is what they are saying, and they do not say it without cause. This should give the Minister and his confreres furiously to think. After parting with the Minister by mutual consent, I was engaged in resisting an effort on the part of the railway authorities to take away from the lower paid people in the service their railway concession tickets. These people consisted of the casual employees, the unestablished workmen, and the telephonists. All these people had a miserable wage, yet the Minister had definitely circularized that their concession tickets were to be taken away. This was not to be done in the case of the higher paid officials, or the clerical staff, but only in the case of the lower paid. Has that been consummated? I did my best to resist it, and in that connection I want to pay a tribute to the Minister of the Interior, who also admitted that it was a very wrong thing to do, and did his best to prevent it being done. I hope that these concession tickets have not been taken away. For all the reasons enumerated by my friends on these benches, and which were endorsed and reinforced, despite what the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has had to say, I submit that these amendments before the House are perfectly justified, and that that is the only way in which these men are likely to get any redress.

I do not propose to follow the hon. member in regard to his attack upon the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). It was not kind of him to do so knowing what a delicate position the hon. member for Hanover Street is in. This makes it very embarrassing for the latter member. At a recent public meeting the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister for the Interior claimed that the hon. member for Hanover Street is virtually a Nationalist, How could you expect him, in all the circumstances, to vote against the Government on a vote of no-confidence? I wish to refer to the subject of railway crossings. For many years past I have brought this matter to the attention of the House, and have on every occasion emphasized the extent to which these level crossings interfere with and constitute a danger to the commercial and social life of the country. At many of the crossings on the Wynberg line there have been a number of serious accidents, and we hear of fatal accidents which are due to the fact that the traffic on that line has increased by an enormous extent. The fatalities that have taken place have occurred to persons ranging from humble labourers to leading members of the community, as for instance when only a short time ago a well-known and highly-respected resident at Rosebank was killed on a crossing at Rosebank. I say this is a very serious thing, and that the Government should not let it continue any longer. On this point our case has been fortified by the Railway Level Crossings Commission, the commission has recommended that the Government should at once provide either subways or overhead bridges at about 28 places on this line to which I have referred. This commission points out the serious risks at these level crossings and enormous percentage of business time during which the railway gates are closed during the day. This latter feature is a serious hindrance to traffic and to business. The commission came to the conclusion that it was the duty of the Government to make provision for 28 crossings. There are at present three. The commission is of opinion that the cost should be borne by the Railway Administration, with three exceptions, where part of it should be borne by the municipality. The cost is estimated at £146,000, £8,500 of which would be charged, according to the commission’s recommendation, to the city council or estate owners. Before electrification came in the question of these crossings was raised, and it was pointed out that when the line was electrified the delays and dangers would be largely increased. Now it is perfectly notorious that the danger to persons crossing the railway line is a very serious one indeed, and has largely increased with electrification. I had the honour of introducing a deputation a little while ago to the Minister, and so I know the Minister’s decision on this point: but I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision that the Government is prepared to pay only on a fifty-fifty basis as far as the municipalities are concerned. That means a very serious burden on the municipality here, and I ask the Minister what justification there is for laying down an arbitrary principle like that. The people are entitled to travel freely over the roads. The railway introduced an element of danger which becomes increasingly great as time goes on. It is the Government which has brought danger to the roads, and it is not the municipality which has brought the roads to the danger. Surely the Government should take action to remove the danger. The railway is run for profit in which the municipality has no share, and the municipality has no say whatever in regard to the control over the railway. The Minister has, it is true, to have his railway there for the purpose of the public convenience, but in putting them there for the public convenience he has no right to put increasing elements of danger without taking any action to minimize or remove them. Here are the ways recommended by the commission by which he can minimize them, in fact, do away entirely with the danger. The commission, in dealing with the question of the liability of the Government to make these crossings safe, points out that the apparent capital cost will not be so great a charge on the Government as it appears to be, if you deduct the capital and cost of alterations: and would be less so after electrification, because there would be a great increase in the cost of attendants at the crossings by reason of the electrification of the line. The provision of subways or bridges would do away with the cost of attendants. The cost of these attendants in 1926, i.e., before electrification, was £4,968, which capitalized at 5 per cent,, would amount to nearly £100,000, and thus would be more now. If that sum even is deducted from the cost of putting in subways or bridges, the net cost to the railways would be very much reduced. I ask the Minister to take these facts into consideration, and to take into consideration the necessity for protecting the lives and property of the people. Bearing in mind these facts, what justification is there for the Minister saying that he will only pay on a fifty-fifty basis? If the municipality pays 50 per cent, of the capital cost the Railway Administration is going to be relieved of a great proportion of its annual cost of attendants at the cost of the municipality. The other day the Minister said it was the duty of the Government to avoid increasing the capital cost of the railway, but there is such a thing as false economy. It will be a very short-sighted policy to refuse to listen to the very just claims which the suburban people are making. The Minister should remember the danger to the lives of the enormous number of people who cross the suburban line daily: for there are enormous numbers of school children and university students crossing daily besides the ordinary traffic of grown up people.

I shall not be long because the Minister of Railways and Harbours is anxious to reply, but there is a question I want to bring to his notice which is so important that it would not be right for me not to mention it. It is in connection with our grain elevators. The Minister knows of the complaint about mealies being broken in the elevators. He took steps at once to have an enquiry made and he was even so friendly as to notify the finding of the officials to me. It appeared that the mealies were not broken in the small elevators but in the large ones at Cape Town and Durban. I do not know who is responsible for the inefficiency of those elevators but I must say that I am very sorry to hear of complaints made by the largest European buyers, who say that the mealies arrive in a very bad state, so that they cannot be used for the purpose contemplated. The Minister intended to have immediate alterations made but what the public in the Transvaal and I would like to know is whether the grain elevators are now in order. Our maize harvest is at hand and we refuse to have our good produce carried to the coast and broken there thus causing our mealies to lose the good name they have to-day. A buyer with whom I came into touch told me that South African maize was better than that of any other country, and that is why our maize gets the preference. But if they hear what our experience regarding maize is they will possibly stop buying it. I therefore hope that the difficulty has been solved, and I am only sorry that it has lasted such a long time because it may possibly already have done harm to our good name. I hope the Minister will assure me that the alteration has been made. It is not a big matter. The maize falls about 90 feet and people who are acquainted with the matter say that the fall can easily be broken into two or three sections and that the maize will then not be injured. Now there is another point I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, namely, the erection of grain elevators. He knows that the farmers want to have elevators where they are required. I should like him to say what he is going to do in future in this connection. The Minister may possibly argue that he will possibly not continue as Minister of Railways, but I can assure him that he will retain the office. I should like to know what his intentions are for the future so that if he comes into office again he can put through the programme he proposes. I also wish the Minister not to build elevators where they are not required, and also that they should be properly built. There are elevators which suit very well, but there are others which do not answer their purpose and which are white elephants. I do not know who is responsible for that, but the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) mentioned here a few days ago that this side of the House was opposed to grain elevators. That is not so. What we are opposed to is the building of elevators where they are not necessary. I want to refer my hon. friend to one place in the district he has represented so long, namely, Devon, where there is no elevator although it is a large centre for maize production. There are also many other places, e.g., in my constituency, where grain elevators are required, but I have not risen to ask for special elevators but only to point out the necessity for them, and to express the hope that proper and effective elevators will be built, and at places where they are really required. I hope the Minister will consult the farmers in the matter, because no one knows better than they what they need, and they are only too anxious to assist the Minister as much as possible.

The surplus which has been earned by the railwaymen has meant efficiency, therefore the efficiency which has been displayed must be the efficiency of not only the general manager but also of the rank and file. Speaking as a late workman and, in a small degree, as a master, I realize that there can be very little content merit and efficiency among artisans when there are two different rates of pay. Some years ago I worked for a firm which had two rates of pay, naturally there was not only a lack of efficiency amongst those who had the lower rate, but also among those who enjoyed the higher rate. Among artisans especially, it is fatal to have two rates of pay for comrades working at the same bench. Before criticising I must acknowledge the present Minister of Railways has far surpassed, from a human point of view, any previous Minister of Railways during the last 20 years. Nevertheless there are grievances and I believe that it is not only the duty altogether of this House to remove them, but it is the duty of the Minister to remove grievances when he is in a position to do so. I believe the present Minister is in that position to rectify these matters and I hope he will give instructions that there shall be one rate of pay for persons who are doing the same class of work. As I have already said the fact of a surplus means there has been efficiency, but I believe that with the importation of the latest machinery the labourers on the railways would become still more efficient and therefore become a more valuable economic factor and so enable us to pay them more wages. In this country the average labourer gets, roughly, 21 per cent, of the artisan rate of pay. In other countries, for example, America, Australia, France, Germany, Belgium and Sweden, we find it is approximately 66 per cent, of the artisan rate of pay, I believe it is wrong to pay the low rate that we are paying at present. There is no doubt there has been some improvement, but I believe by enabling the men to become more efficient and by utilising the latest appliances, we could practically double the rate of pay of labourers on the railways without any cost to the State. Another matter I have drawn the Minister’s attention to constantly is that something should be arranged whereby the grievances of the workers could be more easily met than they are at present. I realize the Minister is in a very peculiar position. When a grievance is laid before him, he has to obtain a report from his officers. Naturally the comradeship among the officers is such that they support each other, for instance if it is a grievance created by a foreman, naturally his superior officer supports his point of view. It is not always so, but it is so in the majority of cases, and it is utterly impossible for the Minister to rectify grievances under the present system. I suggest that he should extend the system of the Welfare Officers. I think it would create a better feeling throughout. We find that every year the number of boys leaving schools is increasing, also that there is a greater demand by these boys to be apprenticed, but we find that they are limited.

Not the Government’s fault but Labour’s fault.

I acknowledge that it is also the trade unions and the shop stewards who are opposing facilities for apprenticeship, but this Parliament represents the people of South Africa for the people’s interests, and the Minister, having charge of the largest department of State, should see that there are more opportunities for apprenticeship in the railway workshops. I believe every boy who is willing to be apprenticed should have an opportunity. This Government always has advocated European expansion. In the Belgian Congo and in central Africa the natives of the country are driving engines and doing mechanical work, and I am convinced that this limitation of apprentices is holding back that which you advocate, European expansion in South Africa. This country is going to be a great country. In 25 years I believe there will be developments practically unthought of at present and it is right that we should at this juncture see that young South Africans have the opportunity to become skilled artisans and so assist in that development. Even in the extensions to this House the contractor had to import mechanics and yet we have thousands of boys refused opportunities to learn the arts, crafts and sciences in a young country such as this. We have a right to say that, although the railways belong to the State, they should also be used for the benefit not only of the users of the railways, but of the people of South Africa generally, and that their children should have an opportunity to become artisans. I acknowledge this Government has done a great deal and I realize, along with the Minister and the hon. member for Vrededorp, that it is trade union policy which is, in part, responsible for the position. Although I am a Labour man I do not say the trade unions are always right. This Government represents the people and therefore it must look after the welfare of all and not merely a section. I believe the present Minister will be the future Minister for the next few years. Therefore I want the Minister to tackle these questions and I do want him to rectify the grievances. The working man does not want a silver spoon put in his mouth; he only wants justice. It would be utterly impossible for any member of this House to be contented if he worked at a trade or profession alongside another member if he was getting less money for the same class of work. I think it wrong to differentiate between rates of pay. The Minister would be wise, even at this late hour, to do something to rectify this and to make the workmen feel that at last he has justice and equity and encouraged to do his best in return for the State and the country.

This will probably be the last opportunity I shall have of speaking in this House and I should like to take the opportunity to remind the Minister of some of the grievances Natal has at the present time. I know I shall be accused of parochialism and that sort of thing, but it is part of a member’s duty to voice the wishes and requirements of his constituents. I would like again to refer to the old question of the railway rates on coal from the Natal collieries to Durban. I am surprised the Minister does not look at it from a more business point of view. There is no doubt that the present rates are restricting business and reducing the railway traffic. The present rates are about 120 per cent, higher than they were before the war, and very few and slight reductions have been made since then, especially on coal for bunker purposes. It is impossible for Natal coal to pay that, though the mines have reduced their costs to the lowest point. None of the Natal collieries is really paying its way, except one. The Minister must admit that the bunkering trade is falling off, and the reason is simply because the rates are too high as at present charged on the railways. Unless the Minister reduces the rates, the trade is going to dwindle. The Minister frequently raises the point, why do not the collieries pool their coal? There are great difficulties in doing that. The Minister says the Transvaal collieries can do it, and why not Natal? One reason is that the qualities of Natal coal differ considerably, whereas in the Transvaal they are fairly even. Certain steamship owners make contracts for certain kinds of coal which come from certain mines, and they will not take any other as a substitute. It is no use asking them to do so. Then I would like to know what does the Government intend to do in connection with the development of Port Natal harbour? How many deep-water berths do they intend to provide? The Government have always been putting the matter off. I think the Minister has had this matter long enough before him, and it is time he made up his mind. We want also to know exactly what the Government are going to do to carry the railway through to Congella. Are they going to allow the position to develop as it is? Or what is their scheme?

We want your views.

I will give the Minister my own views privately, if he wants them. The point is, what is Natal’s and what is Durban’s view. I am paying the Minister a compliment in asking him to go into these matters, because to a certain extent I am conceding that he will be Minister of Railways and Harbours next session, but, even if he is not, possibly his successor is now in the House and is taking note of what I say. A new railway station is also badly needed at Durban. The present one is hopelessly out of date, and is very inconvenient and troublesome to passengers. This has been recognized and admitted by both the present and previous general managers, and promises have been made that the matter will have early attention. But, so far as I know, nothing definite has been done, and I hope that practical steps to remedy this serious grievance will not be further delayed.

I think it is urgently necessary for the Government to go at once into the relation between the Electricity Commission and the railways. The railway department has gone in for an experiment-electrification in two sections—one in Natal and one here at the Cape, and great complaints are being heard and are made by the railway department that that electrification is not answering the expectations that were formed. From the evidence taken in the select committee on railways and harbours, it is quite clear that one reason is, whatever the others may be, that the railways have to pay charges for electric power supply which are much in excess of what was expected—I will not put it higher than that —when the schemes were under consideration, and it is also quite clear that why the power is being charged at the figure at which it is, is that the capital charges which the commission meets are excessive. That is due not only to the fact that the capital outlay was higher than was estimated, but another reason is that the Treasury is requiring the commission to charge themselves with an amount by way of redemption of capital which is far too high. The position is that the Electricity Act under which the commission was instituted provided that the commission can go into the market and raise money by way of stock, debentures and in other ways, and it has to provide a redemption fund to be redeemed in 30 years. I think that is a very drastic requirement, particularly as the commission has to make ample provision for reserve, for a renewals fund and to replace obsolete machinery, or machinery that is to be discarded, and to keep its plant up to standard. In addition to that, what has happened is that the commission has not raised any loans, but the Treasury has made advances from its loan funds. The Treasury is requiring the commission to set aside a redemption fund in respect of these advances of 1.93 per cent., or practically 2 per cent. I contend that is most unreasonable. The Treasury when it raises loans overseas provides a sinking fund at 1 per cent. It is making an enormous profit.

It can go into the open market.

But it does not. The Treasury is making an enormous profit.

Profit?

Yes, because at the end of 30 years they will be redeemed. The users of the railways will have to pay off these advances. I maintain /that the Government should enquire into this. When the scheme was originally under contemplation to electrify the lines in Natal, it was proposed to electrify that section from Maritzburg to Durban, and the commission thereupon proposed to put up a large power station in Durban. As the House knows, that scheme was not proceeded with, but was succeeded by a scheme for electrifying the section between Glencoe and Maritzburg. But the commission has gone on with that power station in Durban, and the railways will have to bear their share of any loss that may be incurred in the running of that power station. What I am afraid of is this: We know that the railways have to pay the commission for power on the basis of what it costs the commission to produce it. What I want to know is if there is any loss in regard to that power station at Durban, will it be put on the shoulders of the users of the railways? The Minister should carry out an early revision of the charges laid upon the railways in respect of electric power, because there can be no doubt that they are far too high. In Cape Town the Administration has to pay far more for power to the commission than it paid to the Cape Town municipality. This is a matter that requires very serious consideration. We have had laid on the Table the report of the renewals fund. I have read that report as intelligently as I can, but I must say I found it extremely difficult to understand. I do not know what the report recommends, or upon what grounds the recommendations are based, but I gather that it will increase the contribution to the renewals fund by £390,000. In addition to that, we are going to have a further £100,000 paid to the betterment fund. These burdens are put upon the shoulders of the users of the railways, and they are not justified. If you have a renewals fund which is based on the principle that the railways should be properly kept up to a standard, I do not think it is fair or reasonable that the cost should be taken out of the pockets of the users of the railways. The railways should be run as a business concern, and if they bring in anything above what is required, that benefit should be given to those who use the, railways, or if necessary, to the railway services. One other matter I wish to mention is in regard to the conditions which exist among these European labourers. When the Minister started on this policy with a tremendous burst of enthusiasm, he put on a large number of labourers for whom adequate provision both in regard to housing and rate of pay was not made, and they are now living under conditions which are no credit to the Administration. I am not going to vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn), but I do say that something must be done to alleviate the conditions under which these labourers are living, both in regard to housing and wage. I do not propose to go into the amendment. Some of the items referred to in it are things which certainly should be looked into, but I shall not vote for the amendment for the same reason as that given by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan). I am not prepared to commit myself to any of the points set out, but in regard to these European labourers I would say that the Minister, in an excess of zeal, in order to give employment to as large a number of men as possible, put on a very large number who are living under conditions which are quite unhealthy, and under which they cannot bring up families as they should be brought up. I would urge the Minister again to give attention to the charges which the railways have to pay for electric power. Until something is done to provide the Railway Administration with power at a reasonable rate, we cannot hope that these electrification schemes, which mean a very great deal to this country, can remain anything but comparative failures.

This debate has not only lasted a long time but has also covered a wide field and I hope the House will be patient while I deal with some of the points mentioned in the course of the debate, but I also hope the hon. member will not object if I do not go into all the small points because a large number of them have already been raised before in this House, privately in my office, or mentioned to officials, and the reason why hon. members raise them again is difficult to understand. Let me first deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). I want to say at once that what he said about the supply of electrical power by the electricity commission undoubtedly calls for the attention of the whole House and the country. Without entirely binding the administration in this connection I may say that to a great extent I quite agree with the hon. member. I agree with him that the electricity commission for whose existence hon. members opposite are responsible—not that I reproach them about it —makes provision according to law not only for maintenance from their revenue, not only for reserve funds for any damage or depreciation, but also for the repayment of the loan over a period of 30 years. In my opinion this goes absolutely too far. It is just the opposite of what we do on the railway. Those who drafted the constitution went on the principle that as long as there was an asset on the railways which answered 100 per cent, to its purpose so far as efficiency was concerned there was not the least necessity for a sinking fund. That was the view, and as we had an asset of £150,000,000 there is no sinking fund, and not a penny is put aside in that respect. I am glad that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) also said that the whole matter should be gone into to see whether the time had not come to create a sinking fund, but the peculiar fact is that the Parliament which in 1922 was responsible for the drafting of the Electricity Act went precisely from the other point of view and said that the whole capital must be paid off within 30 years. That cannot be justified. It means that in the commencing stage while the industries are beginning to develop, are still in their infancy, the highest possible price has to be paid for electrical power.

The Minister is I think now criticizing an Act. That cannot be done unless there is a substantial effort being made to make amendments to the Act.

I see the point but I think I am surely entitled to point it out if the effects of the Act have an injurious effect on the industries of the country. The railways are one of the chief consumers of electrical power. I think there is much to be said for it, as the hon. member for Yeoville suggested, that Parliament could consider whether an amendment ought not to be made in this respect. The hon. member also asked whether the railways will have to bear a loss on the Durban power station. No, the Railway Department has no responsibility in that connection. We get power from the station for the Durban dry dock and our other requirements, but we have nothing to do with any loss. Then a number of hon. members spoke about the report dealing with depreciation of stock which was recently made. Hon. members ask whether instructions were laid down by the commission or not. All I can say is that the whole matter was gone into by three of our senior officers who were in the best possible position to judge, and these three gentlemen drafted the report on a scientific basis and based it on their experience for many years, what the life of the various assets in the railway service was.

What figure did they arrive at.

To various figures, and in some cases they extended the life, or rather the expected life, of the assets while in other cases they shortened it, but I think that we as a Parliament can do nothing else but accept the opinion of the gentlemen who went into the whole matter scientifically, that the life of the various assets is what they have fixed. If they, for instance, say that the life of an engine is supposed to be 30 years then I do not think the House is in a position to say that it is not a sound conclusion. There is, of course, a constant depreciation and we must from time to time make increased provision and I think it would be wrong of the House not to adopt the finding of the officers who have had years of experience in railway matters. It is true we have no sinking fund, and therefore I think it is a better policy to err on the side of a too long provision rather than the opposite. Otherwise we might possibly reach the position that, where the assets are receding in value, we should not have the necessary money, not only to buy new material for purposes of extensions but also to replace depreciated material. It is said that we have possibly erred in making too great provision. My hon. friend was able in the case of electric locomotives to buy out of the renewal fund and I supported him and said that when money was available in the renewal fund it was quite the right thing to buy engines with it. It will interest hon. members to know that during the next financial year a large sum is going to be taken from the renewal fund for the purchase of new stock. We are fully justified in doing so in view of the depreciation of rolling stock. One of the important things Parliament must bear in mind is whether we shall continue the policy followed in the past—of making no provision for a sinking fund. My hon. friend says that the provision of £250,000 is unnecessary, but let me ask him whether he has considered how our branch lines show a loss—as is proved by the data laid on the Table this afternoon— and how the lines which formerly showed a profit—like the suburban lines— are showing a loss to-day. Assets which once paid well no longer pay owing to motor competition and other factors. That is where in my opinion the South Africa Act is wrong, because account is not taken of the fact that there will be branch lines which will not make a sufficient profit. Take, for instance, the dry dock at Durban for which the last Government was responsible. It will never pay the interest on the capital. Take the grain elevators. They show a big loss every year.

[inaudible].

I agree. Either he or Mr. Burton thought that it was necessary to have a dry dock. I think they went too fast, but the fact remains that it will not pay interest on the capital. Take also the factor of motor competition. We all agree that it has come to stay. Well, what will be the position in future when the assets which are paying well to-day will show greater and greater losses? I think, therefore, it is a matter which the House will have to consider. I am sorry that my hon. friend does not agree, but if the present Administration has done one thing it is that in the face of serious competition and other serious factors we have strengthened the internal position of the railways. The internal position of our railways to-day is absolutely sound. The pension funds are absolutely sound and will remain so if the present contributions are made. Then £1,000,000 has been put into assets on which no interest need be paid. The various steps that have been taken have made the position of the railways such that we can look any difficulty in the face in future, although this does not mean that there are not serious problems left which will have to be gone into. Then the housing of white labourers has been referred to. I admit it is not satisfactory at many places, but here I want to ask my hon. friend a question which I have already put before. Was it better to leave the Europeans without work, as the last Government did, than to give them an honest day’s work even with housing conditions which are not always good?

They were on the ground.

How can my hon. friend say that in view of the fact staring him in the face, namely, that we had to do with the condition of unemployment spread over the whole country? I hope that South Africa will never again be faced with the position that existed when this Government assumed office, because it was a wretched state of affairs. I will mention a few facts about the administration of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), which will show why the conditions were so bad—on account of the policy he followed of pushing Europeans out of the service and appointing natives in their places. Take, e.g., the question of housing. Does my hon. friend know that one of the reasons why we have not enough houses is that my predecessor followed a policy of absolute retrenchment? In 1921 only 53 houses were built, in 1922, 18, in 1923, 44. In other words he made no provision. In 1924 there was an immediate change, because the figures thereafter were: 1924, 109; 1925, 283; 1926, 101; and 1927, 163. The position was considerably improved as a result of the steps we took. Then my hon. friend said that we employed people although we did not need them. I am surprised at his statement, because my hon. friend knows well enough that our policy is not to dismiss natives but to appoint Europeans whenever natives leave the service. It is certainly inaccurate to say that we appointed Europeans without having work for them. Then the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) asked me about the rate on coal. I have, however, already dealt with this matter so often that it is unnecessary to detain the House with it any further now. He also spoke about a deep-water quay for Durban. We went into the whole matter and found that legislation was necessary in connection with the construction of a deep-water quay. The Administration is convinced that there is justification for an additional deep-water quay —not for two—and I hope to make provision for it on the loan estimates after the legal position has been put right, I was disappointed that the hon. member did not state his views about improvements there. The Durban public want the money to be spent, but throw the whole responsibility on the Administration. They do not want to take the responsibility of expressing their views.

What are you going to do? Are you going to take the railway to Congella?

I am just as careful as my hon. friend there, and am not prepared at this stage to say what I am going to do. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) dealt with the question of crossings. The Government has decided not to accept the commission’s report in so far as the payment of 50 per cent, by the central government was concerned. The view of the Government is that the Railway Administration must contribute 50 per cent., but that the remaining 50 per cent, must be borne by the local authorities.

That is no change.

I am only following the good principle laid down by my predecessor, and I want to refer the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who followed a very sound policy.

In that respect

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) joined the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and made a strong attack on the railway administration because we pay work people 3s. a day. I have already stated ad nauseam, that the 3s. a day is paid to young lads who are employed as apprentices. The time of apprenticeship lasts from 6 to 12 or 18 months, and then the apprentices are appointed to graded jobs at 10s., 12s., to 15s. per day according to capacity. I thought that he would agree with that, but instead of that he makes a severe attack on the administration. As for the apprentices, the payment is purely pocket money to assist them during the period we are training them, and it is not at all what we are paying as wages to European labourers. I am sorry to detain the House with this, but there are hon. members who do not seem to be able to understand that European labourers do not get only 5s. a day. The wage is now 5s. 6d. after two years, with an increase to 6s. after three years. Besides this, the man, from the first day, gets a free house or otherwise 1s. 9d. a day house allowance in the Transvaal, and a little less in other parts. In the Transvaal, therefore, it means 7s. 9d. besides all the other privileges which are calculated at 1s. 4d. at least. Therefore the pay in the Transvaal amounts to 9s. 1d. a day, but yet hon. members come and talk of 5s. a day.

After how many years is that?

After three years. After the second year it is 8s. 7d. and it is 8s. 1d. immediately the labourer comes into the service. If hon. members attacked the Government in this connection then I say that they did not take the trouble to ascertain the facts of the matter. Then the hon. member for Benoni also said that we should abolish the appeal board but I must say that he is very badly informed in this respect about the wishes of the staff. He also said that disciplinary punishment is imposed too severely by the Minister. I am astonished at such a remark because the hon. member ought surely to know that the Minister never imposes a punishment upon any official. It is exercised by the heads of departments in their respective divisions, and not by the Minister. The Minister is only there, together with the Railway Board, when an appeal is noted against any judgment, to act as a court of appeal. The hon. hon. member may think that punishments are too severe but he surely cannot throw a doubt on the discretion of the head officials in this connection. He was also astonished that I answered in such a way to the attack by the hon. member for Illovo on our head officials. Let me say that the day in which the House interferes with the authority and powers of our head officials in connection with the exercise of discipline will be a sad day and will create a hopeless position. We appoint our head officials in the various divisions and systems, and we ought to have sufficient confidence in them to believe that they properly impose punishments. In this connection I want at once to deal with the McTaggart case. The hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) has several times made a strong attack on this Government in connection with our policy in the McTaggart case.

Will you not please speak in English.

I do not know whether I may do so, and then continue in Aïrikaans.

Yes, the Minister can do so.

Let me say with regard to Driver McTaggart that I do not think I can do better than read an extract from the minutes submitted by the general manager to the Minister—

This man was a member of the Cape fixed establishment. In view of this minute I ask the hon. member, does he submit that the general manager and his officers erred?

You are asking me a question?

Two senior officers inquired into the charge—a district inspector and a loco inspector. They found the first charge proved, but the second charge was found not proved. There is a further minute from the assistant superintendent (operating) at East London—

I should like to say this to hon. members: When senior officers, who are responsible for the maintenance of discipline and the safe running of our railways, are satisfied from the facts in the case and the history of a particular employee that action such as taken in this case is justified, I am not prepared to disagree from them.

You refuse an inquiry.

I have just told the hon. member that there was an inquiry, and that the General Manager came to the conclusion that the man should be dismissed, and that the Minister acted on that report. I want to say quite definitely that I am not prepared to disturb the decision taken on that occasion.

You will not re-open the case.

Certainly not. An hon. member has stated that the man was threatened in connection with the refund of his pension contributions. That was a most serious statement, and I therefore asked the officers to report on the matter, and I will give the House the information given to me. I have here the report from the General Manager, who points out that any such action would be opposed to section 28 of Act No. 24 of 1925. He also points out that a cheque for the amount due was sent to McTaggart, who refused to accept it, and that he, the General Manager, is satisfied that no such condition as that suggested was imposed. I should like to say generally with regard to this case and all similar cases that we are always prepared to reconsider them. Members must clearly understand that we are not prepared to reinstate this employee. We are prepared to consider his re-employment. Undoubtedly this man has been severely punished for a very serious offence, but I am quite prepared to give consideration to his case with a view to giving him re-employment. At the same time I want to say quite definitely that I think the safety of passengers demands that if he is re-employed, he should not be re-employed as a driver.

†*The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) explained why he attended the meeting of protest last night, and I was astonished at the attack made on him by hon. members on the cross-benches opposite. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) appears to be taking a great interest. Does he know that in the Cape Peninsula alone there are 400 people who are interested in the working hours of the running staff? The meeting was advertised far and near, but there were less than 40 persons present. There does not appear therefore to be such terrible dissatisfaction about the working conditions if a protest meeting so much advertised was only attended by 34 persons. Hon. members there, in so far as the staff are concerned, want us of course to carry out everything they consider as just, irrespective of what becomes of the financial position of the railways. I want to repeat what I have already often said. Hon. members opposite will not agree with me in this respect, but while I have every possible sympathy for the staff and show it, I am not prepared to allow the interests of the users of the railways to suffer in consequence. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) asked why the whole surplus was not applied for the benefit of the staff. There I differ radically from him. The users of the railways have just as much right to have their interests served as the staff. I expected a certain amount of acknowledgment from hon. members opposite of what has been done. Let me tell them this, that they are badly informed if they think that the concessions which have been made to the staff are not appreciated outside. The various improvements which are contemplated are not very large, but I am able to say that they are appreciated notwithstanding what hon. members on the cross-benches may say. The hon. member resents the inclusion of the payment for overtime, and the inclusion of the booking on and off as a trifle. Does he know that in order to include it costs the administration £65,000? It is very easy to say that the eight hours day should also be applied to ticket examiners and guards, but that would cost another £70,000, and hon. members will see that that cannot be done in view of the fact that our railways must be run on sound business principles.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) and other members raised the position of station foremen and practically said that we have done nothing for them under the report of the working hours committee. That is not so. Grants were made to them by way of extra leave, and by way of reliefs, which put them in a better position than they were in before. If we sum up everything then there remains little of the committee’s recommendations that has not been carried out. I want to tell the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), who on the one hand wants the report carried out, and on the other proposes a departure from it—namely that each day should stand by itself—that he cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that the report must be adopted in its entirety, and then at the same time reject that portion which recommends that every day should not be treated separately but that the working hours should Be calculated at 96 hours for 14 days for drivers and firemen, and 108 hours for ticket examiners and guards. Then certain hon. members propose that we should return to the 1923 scales of salaries. As I have already said before, it is quite impossible, and hon. members will appreciate this when I say that the additional expenditure for such an alteration for the whole staff— because it cannot be applied merely to the men in the workshops—will amount to a sum of £1,380,000. It is just sufficient to mention this figure to make hon. members realise how impossible it is to revert to the old scale. It is not the intention of the Government to do so. The question of long service grants was also raised, but I have already explained that it is only paid to pre-Union officials. They lost certain privileges, and consequently these allowances were made to them. The post-Union officials never enjoyed these allowances and we are not prepared to give them to them. Then it was also urged that there should be condonation with regard to the bar on promotion for the 1014 strikers. I have often explained that we cannot comply with the request. We have already made considerable concessions to them by way of recognition of service for pension purposes, but if there is to be condonation of the bar on promotion then it will cause too much disturbance in the service.

What about the rebels?

I admit they got condonation of the bar on promotion in 1921, but they did not receive it for pension purposes.

Both are wrong.

Well, the fact is that a concession was made to one group with regard to pensions, and to another with regard to promotion, and it is impossible to reopen the whole matter now. It will only cause trouble. Although the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) is not here now I want to reply to his remarks about wire-pulling and preference to certain officials. The hon. member did not mention a single specific case to prove it, and I therefore ask what value can be attached to such statements. The one concrete example of alleged political interference which he mentioned was an enquiry which took place at Uitenhage. He said that the enquiry officer was sent on representations of the chairman of the Uitenhage Nationalist party and that a political enquiry was held. Well I want to say that there is not a single word of truth as to a political enquiry. The officer entrusted with the interests of the staff is sent from time to time by the general manager to investigate representations received from hon. members of all parties, from chairmen of branches of all parties, or from any body or person who take an interest in staff matters. Let me say with regard to the Uitenhage enquiry that representations were received from the chairman of the Nationalist party. There is no reason to keep it secret because similar representations have already been made by various political parties and by hon. members on both sides of the House. When they say that there is dissatisfaction at a certain station or depot the official is sent there. He is one of the most efficient officials in the service, and has been entrusted with these enquiries for many years now. When he arrives at a place he goes directly to the officer in charge, to the mechanical engineer in the case of Uitenhage. He says that he has come to make an enquiry, an office is put at his disposal and every member of the staff who has a grievance can bring it before him there. The so-called proof of ) political interference was a letter from one of the officials of the mechanical engineer which the hon. member read, and which referred to a case which had already been before the Minister and the Railway Board, in consequence of which the official charged with the enquiry did not want to see the person. Is it not quite right that a letter should be written that inasmuch as the Minister and the Railway Board, the highest body in the railway service, had already disposed of the matter, and that the enquiring officer could not therefore go into it again? In the case of Uitenhage scores of representations were made to the official and an enquiry made, and it will interest hon. members to know what takes place. The man files his complaint and states what has been done which he considers wrong and then the staff file of the man is called for and the whole matter discussed with the head official of the depot. When the enquiry officer has investigated the whole matter and come to decision he sends his report to the general manager who goes into the matter and then sends a report to the Minister and Railway Board, who then finally dispose of it. There is however not the least ground for the statement of the hon. member for Uitenhage that there was political interference at Uitenhage. I only want to say that it is a pity for the hon. member to make such irresponsible statements, and apparently not to realize that he is making serious charges against the officials who do such difficult work, work which contributes a great deal to preserve contentment amongst the staff. Then I come to the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), and his remarkable charge in connection with the attitude we assume about grain elevators, and the Natal electrification. The hon. member says that we were strongly opposed to the building of grain elevators. How much of that is true? Can he quote one Speech by an hon. member on this side of the House against the grain elevator system? No, it was not so and it is not my experience. Hon. members on this side are constantly urging the extension of the system and want to develop it much faster than I am prepared to do. Only this afternoon the hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. de Wet) urged the extension of the system. Then the hon. member said that the rates were very greatly reduced by my predecessor, and he compared it with what was done in connection with reduction of rates by the present Government. He talks of a poor attempt by the present Government which compares very unfavourably with the previous Minister’s action. Let us just look at the record of the previous Government a little in connection with reduction and increase of rates. Do hon. members remember, or have they already forgotten, that from 1916-17 to 1921 the previous Government, of which the hon. member was such a faithful supporter, increased the rates by about £9,300,000? That is what his party did. In 1916-17 the rates were increased by £500,000, in 1917-18 by £320,000, in 1918 ’19 by £2,047,000, in 1920 by £1,772,000 and in 1920 ’21—the zenith of their glorious increase of rates—by £4,654.000. During the last year the increase was therefore almost £4¾ millions, and of that the hon. member is so proud. The increase on livestock was £504,000, on passengers £1,300,000, on bunker coal £2,950,000, on general goods £4,646,000. When the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) made reductions, namely £132,000 for live stock, £296,000 for passengers, £1,590,000 on bunker coal, and £1,055,000 on general goods, a total of 3,073,000 after the rates had been increased by over £9,000,000, then I ask hon. members is that anything to be so frightfully proud of?

You go back to the stone age.

The hon. member is in a difficult position. When you have to be so ashamed of your own past then you cannot expect anything else. I am only going back eight years, to 1920-’21. That the hon. member calls the “early” stone age years. He would rather have it hidden away in a closed book. I then come to the reduction of rates under the present Government. On live stock it was £31,000, passengers £418,000, bunker coal £201,000, and other goods £883,000, total £1,533,000. That is half of what the previous Government did. Now I ask my hon. friend whether he does not see—he will certainly see it if he ever becomes a Minister—that the more the rates are reduced the more difficult it becomes to reduce them further. I think the hon. member will now talk less about the rates under the previous Government. To my astonishment he has come back to the civilized labour policy. I am really sorry for the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) who can literally say, “save me from my friends.” The hon. member not only returns to that, not only defends the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), but now quite soon before the election he is brazen enough to actually come and say that his party was responsible for the institution of the civilized labour policy. I must say that that is too much. I have the minutes of the general manager before me. I would rather have let it rest, but as the hon. member is so shameless he must forgive me if I mention a few facts with regard to the policy of the previous Minister of Railways and Harbours. I have here the minute of the general manager of the 16th February, 1924. I quote from it as follows—

Now the hon. member will please listen carefully—

Therefore the white workers were really worse off than the coloured ones, and the natives so far as privilege tickets were concerned-—

The hon. member will please pay particular attention to this—

33 Europeans at work! And then the hon. member says without turning a hair that they are responsible for the white labour policy. I have said before, and I repeat it that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) had a difficult task as Minister, but to get out of the mess in which ex-Minister Burton left the railways he adopted methods which no one in South Africa who wants to see a white civilisation maintained will do otherwise than deeply disapprove of. The less he says about it the better for him and his party. Then he again complained seriously about the increase in expenditure. I admit it is constantly rising, but is it not a reason for gratitude that, notwithstanding this so-called bad Government, our country is progressing so tremendously that the traffic figures show a record every year. Does the hon. member think that the traffic can constantly increase without the rolling stock and the staff being increased? Development and progress surely brings assets to the railway administration, and so long as the results are sound—and the hon. member cannot attack them—I must really say that the hon. member’s criticism makes not the least impression upon me. The position is sound. A few hon. members complained about the motor competition and the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) said that the commission of enquiry must make a report to which much value would not attach because the railways have too large a representation on it. The hon. member is again wrong in his facts. Does he not know then that the chairman is an independent person who is not in the railway service? Three members have been nominated by outside bodies, and two members represent railway interests. The proportion is therefore 4 to 2. How then can the hon. member say that no value can be attached to it because the railways have the majority? The hon. member asked a question with reference to the dock police.

Will the Minister kindly deal with this in English?

So far as the police at the Cape Town docks are concerned, the whole matter is the subject of negotiations between the different departments. Certain difficulties have now arisen with regard to immigration duties, and the matter is being gone into again by the department. As far as we are concerned, our police do only the actual railway work there. I hope that my colleague, the acting Minister of Justice, will be able to make a statement.

Does that apply to Durban also?

No.

†*The hon. member for Beaconsfield, (Col. Sir David Harris) advocated the doubling of the main lines. Let me say here, and I am speaking on behalf of every hon. member sitting here, that he has served the House for many years in a quiet and dignified way. Although we have not always agreed with him, all will agree with me that he was always an example of what a gentleman should be in the true sense of the word. Inasmuch as he is going to leave us, and as he himself said has sung his swansong in the House I must say these few words. In connection with his remark about the doubling of the main line I can only say that I shall be prepared to go into it when the traffic justifies it. To-day, however, there is not the least justification of it, and we can carry a great deal more before it will be necessary. He also said that we must not allow the coal interests to suffer during the peaks of the traffic. There I agree with him, and therefore enough rolling stock has been ordered to handle the traffic even in difficult times. He however used an argument which I regret, namely that the interior has to pay for the coast. That is not the case.

It is the truth.

Let me try then to convince the hon. member as well. I have to-day received a deputation from the Western Province and the argument was used that the coast was paying for the interior.

That is Strange.

There is another member who thinks that the interior is paying for the coast. If, however, we look at the running of the goods trains to the coast and inland, then we find that the great flow of the traffic is not inland, but to the coast. The trains to the coast are full, but they run empty to the interior. That is the result of the growth of the inland industries.

What about the rates?

Do not run away from the point I want to finish dealing with this matter first. On account of the growth of industries inland the traffic inland is no longer so heavy.

The interior has to pay for the transport to the coast.

The interior pays the very lowest rates on its export produce. Where do you want cheaper rates on the produce of the farmers?

They pay.

They do pay, but if they had to pay according to distance it would be much more. The rate on maize, e.g., is the lowest in the world.

That is right.

The hon. member will agree.

Yes, and he represents maize farmers. We ought to drop the matter of the interior and the coast. We form one whole, and the coast bears its responsibility with the interior. The less a so-called conflict is spoken of the better. There is no actual conflict. I hope hon. members will not object to my not dealing with the smaller points now, they have all been duly noted and the administration will go into them.

What about the central work shop?

As hon. members know negotiations were entered into with a company to erect central workshops, but the negotiations fell through after they had advanced some way. To-day no negotiations are taking place in the matter. It is confidently expected however that this matter will again be tackled when the iron and steel industry is more advanced. There is not the least doubt about it because applications have already been received for the building of central workshops. I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn), and I hope the House will now pass the second reading.

Question put: That all the words after That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, and a division was called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Allen. Barlow, Kentridge, Madeley and Reyburn) voted against the question, Mr. Speaker declared the question affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Reyburn dropped.

Motion for second reading then put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

Clauses and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment and read a third time.

I move:

Shortly after the Act was passed last year a committee of the League of Nations insisted on two new poisons being included among habit-forming drugs. The Medical Council and the Pharmacy Board considered the matter and they both agreed unanimously on the addition of these two poisons to the list. As the Act provides that additions can be made to the Schedule only with the approval of both Houses of Parliament, I have come to the House to get approval.

seconded.

I just want to put a question to the Minister in connection with Clause 5 which says that when the Minister takes over the Pienaars River scheme from the Irrigation Board he will not be responsible for damage caused by washaways. Now I want to ask the Minister if he will not agree to take this provision out of the clause. I understand there is already a difficulty which may lead to a court case. If the Irrigation Board is dissolved, who will be responsible for compensation for washaways.

The scheme already costs the Government £58,000, and now the hon. member asks for still more. I think it is going a little too far to ask the Government to continue to bear responsibility if damage is caused by washaways in consequence of which damages are claimed in court.

When the debate was adjourned I was just showing that the contract according to the report of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours actually created, and necessarily must create a monopoly in favour of the company which is now going to build the railway. I do not want to labour the point except that I want to say that from the nature of the case it must necessarily be so, but that it need not necessarily be injurious. With regard to manganese the position is that ore is found in various parts of the world, and before we can get much further a steady world market must first be found. Only if a few large companies tackle the matter can it be possible for South Africa to obtain such a market. For the Government to enter into such a contract is excusable, notwithstanding the fact that a monopoly is practically being established. But there is another point to which I want to draw the attention of the House, which is of great importance in the establishment of our iron and steel industry in Pretoria. The German report on which the industry is actually being established proceeds from the view that the manganese for that industry will have to be imported into South Africa, and the prices to be paid for it are based on that assumption, and hon. members opposite greatly emphasized this fact by pointing out that the cost will be too high. After the Bill was before the House it appeared that South Africa had the best and largest manganese fields in the world. They are the best in various respects. Our manganese is harder than most manganese found in other countries, and it is easily transported and mined. Besides the manganese found in South Africa being better than that in most other parts of the world, the supply is inexhaustible. According to the available figures, because the survey is not yet completed, the supply of manganese available is no less than 500,000,000 tons. The world consumption is at present only 3,000,000 a year. There are other countries which also have a large enough supply to supply the world with manganese for years. Of the 500.000,000 tons available for export more than half is of a standard of between 45 per cent, and 55 per cent., in other words suitable for steel. From the report of the experts it appears that it is necessary for countries like America, Great Britain, France, and all steel manufacturing countries to have a large supply of manganese accumulated in their countries, to have it available from time to time for the manufacture of steel. It is calculated that not a single country can allow less than 10,000,000 tons to be available for the factories. All the countries must have such supplies, and when steps are taken to establish a monopoly in certain respects it is necessary to get so far that an industry arises to secure a world market. Our manganese has on the average a grade of 45 per cent., and the price is £3 10s. a ton. The cost of production in our country on those fields is 4s. a ton. The cost of working and transport to the nearest station is about 2s. a ton. The railway rate to the coast is 17s. a ton, and the sea freight 20s. a ton. It follows that we can deliver manganese to America or Europe for £2 3s. a ton. The quantity which will be available immediately is 350,000 tons. According to the contract the company must carry 200,000 tons the first year, 350,000 tons for the second year, but according to the available information at least a further 150,000 tons could be exported. Thus there is a prospect of our country being able to export 500,000 tons within 2 years at £3 10s. a ton representing a value of £1,700,000. The money will come in within a comparatively short time, and show a profit to the country of at least £1,000,000. The value of manganese ore of 45 per cent, is £3 10s., but for every percentage of higher grade the price is 1s. 6d. a ton more. Thus for a grade of 50 per cent, it is 7s. 6d. higher, etc., and a great deal of our ore is 55 per cent. According to the report there will be a further 250,000,000 tons available of a grade under 45 per cent., and that ore is also available for many purposes. There is a country like Japan which uses large quantities of ferro-manganese for its steel manufactures. Japan alone uses 400,000 tons of it a year, and Japan has no coal. A representative of the Japanese imperial steel factories came to our country two years ago and from what he said it appeared that Japan had great difficulty on account of lack of coal, because for every ton of ore practically a ton of coal was used. Japan pays as much as £20 per manufactured ton. We can make it here at £7 10s. a ton. If therefore the manufacture in our country is tackled there are tremendous prospects for the manufacture of steel here. On the Continent the value of manganese ore is £13, and in England £12 10s. per ton. If the ferromanganese is manufactured in our country a profit of at least £5 a ton can be made because we have large quantities here. This development completely dovetails into the industrial policy of our present Government. As soon as ever there is anything in industrial matters that offers prospects the Government takes an interest in it and assists in its development. Steps are immediately taken to tackle the matter. Here we have a company which is prepared to spend money to build a railway on certain conditions, and within a few years the company, according to the contract, will transport 350,000 tons a year. In addition large quantities of coal from our own country will have to be used in connection with the manufacture. Within five or six years 10,000 to 15,000 people will be able to find work in connection with our manganese which will be a great blessing to the country.

The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) spoke about the rate for manganese between Postmasburg and East London, and between Postmasburg and Durban, and he thinks he has a serious grievance because we reduced the rate. I have already made it clear that when the contract was entered into the company asked for a flat rate, that is the same rate to Durban as to East London. That we could not agree to, but we reduced the rate to Durban to 15/9, while it is 15/4 to East London. The rate to East London is therefore still lower than that to Durban. The hon. member said that it was not a proper thing to make a differentiation of that kind, but he forgets that East London is in a favourable position for the traffic to the Witwatersrand. Although East London is 183 miles further from the Witwatersrand than Durban, the same rate applies between East London and the Rand as between Durban and the Rand in order to give East London more of the traffic to the Witwatersrand—the competitive area. In this case no new principle is being imported and no injustice is being done to East London. The same principle applies to the transport of maize. For export the same rate exists. East London, which is further from the place of production than Durban, enjoys the same rate as any other harbour in the country. I need not of course point out that there is no prejudice against East London with the railway administration, but we must keep the welfare of the country in mind. I am sorry therefore that I cannot grant the request of the hon. member for East London (North) to reduce the rate for East London. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) asked what the administration of South-West was guaranteeing for the new railway to Gobabis. They are only guaranteeing the interest on the capital. We are extending the line from Witvlei, on which the administration also guarantees the interest. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) asked whether the standard rate would apply to the line to Postmasburg. The ordinary branch line rates will apply. To his other question I reply that there is provision in the contract for the administration to extend the line if it wishes to in any direction. The hon. member for Hopetown, and also the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) mentioned the position of Danielskuil. We have had a survey made to see if the line cannot be built nearer to Danielskuil but the nature of the ground is such that the grades will be too high. In view of the heavy traffic it is not possible to take the line closer to Danielskuil, and I am sorry that in the circumstances it is not possible. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) asked a question about the interest. It will form a debit against the working costs. If there is a loss on the working costs, which include the interest, then the company must make it good. The company must invest money in Government securities, and this investment will serve as a security for any losses. The hon. member strongly attacked the Railway Board for bad estimates in the past with regard to branch lines. I admit that these estimates were not so close to the later results as one would like. I want, however, to point out to the hon. member that it is very difficult for the Board to form an opinion about the financial results of the running of a line. Traffic officers are sent out to collect information and the estimates are prepared with these data as a basis. Droughts however come along in special circumstances and the calculation appears to be wrong. Take for instance the line to Touws River and Ladismith. My predecessor and his railway board were responsible for it. They never expected that the position would be as serious as it has already been for many years. There was a frightful loss on this line, but no one, when the construction of the line was approved of ever thought that the people would continue in such a distressful state for years. Those are circumstances which the Railway Board cannot foresee. If there is a proper rainfall in the Ladismith district then there will be better financial results there, because it is a first-class district with first-class residents. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) also asked me about the establishment of a motor service in case the Sea Point people find that the bus or tram fares are made too high. I cannot make him definite promises, but I have no objection to saying that if that did occur the railway administration would be quite willing to consider proposals from the public. Personally I do not expect it because the competition between the buses and the trams will be sufficient to keep the fares at a satisfactory level.

It will satisfy the public.

I have now answered all the points raised, and I hope the House will take the second reading.

I move:

It seems to me that this is a matter which particularly affects municipalities throughout the Union, and I have in mind a case which occurred recently, not a hundred miles from Cape Town where the administration has crossed roads, which may mean considerable expense to the municipality and disorganisation of the traffic, or even may effect private interests concerned, I imagine the same thing may occur with regard to other municipalities. I cannot see why, if the railway administration is bound to pay compensation where railways cross private land, it should not similarly be bound to pay compensation to any public body like a divisional or a municipal council which may be affected in the same way. The clause rather assumes that to cross a public road merely consists in laying lines across that road, and thereafter allowing that road to be used as heretofore. But, in point of fact, it can cause tremendous dislocation and considerable expense, because under that road you may find sewers and cables, and above ground you may find electric power lines and telegraph lines; and if, by means of an overhead bridge, or level crossing, the railway administration can go across without the municipal or the divisional council having the least say, the latter may be put to considerable expense. There is no power to insist on a sub-way or entitling them to demand a single sovereign for compensation for any loss that they may sustain. I recall a debate in this House two years ago when the railway administration proposed to cross two arteries of traffic —the Koeberg Road and the Main Road near Woltemade. In the first instance they proposed to do so by a clause like this, and the hon. Minister’s colleague, in the absence of the Minister of Railways and Harbours, gave certain assurances, but only after difficulty and negotiation. Although these lines may not pass over roads of considerable importance, something should be said for the local authority concerned. I believe we should lay down a principle that they should make it quite clear that whatever injury may result in consequence, the Department should be bound to adequately compensate the local authority concerned. The argument put forward by the administration is that where local authority is concerned, they are both serving the public, and, therefore, the department should have the right to cross the road, but that the local authority should bear the whole burden of expense. You can have a case where traffic entering the city may be very seriously incommoded. Take, for instance, the level crossing at Belmont Road, at Rondebosch. Whether that is a case in point as far as this particular clause is concerned I cannot say, but it should be made clear that where any injury is caused, compensation should be paid. I, therefore, move the following amendment—

I regret I cannot accept that, and for a very good reason. It seems to me that we must deal with each case on its merits. This line is out in the need, and there is no necessity for subways or overhead bridges.

Do you accept the principle?

If a good case can be made out, yes, but I think it will be very dangerous to put in a clause of that kind here.

I just want to ask a question in connection with the £750 compensation. I understand the whole piece is 9 miles, and that there is only one owner in respect of the piece for which compensation is to be paid. I want to ask the Minister if he has already negotiated with the owner.

Preliminary negotiations have already taken place with the owner, and I hope a satisfactory settlement will be arrived at, but if not it will of course be necessary for use to pay compensation fixed by the court, or by a special board appointed for the purpose.

If, however, there is only one claim then we are limited to compensation of £750 throughout the whole area of nine miles. Provision is nowhere made for any larger claim which may come in.

The restriction only applies if the amount is not higher than £750, but if there is a claim about £750 then it does not come under the provisions with regard to a board, and the individual will therefore be able to get higher compensation.

I want to come back to the question of the reduction of rates in favour of Durban. An agreement was made with this company that the rates coming into force at the signing of the agreement were not to be increased for a period of ten years, but the Minister then proceeds to make a reduction in rates from this mineralized area to one port, and not to all ports. I must say that there has been no explanation from the Minister which appears to me to justify this. Why should any reduction be for one port only? Why should the Minister assume that these people are going to ship all their ore to Durban? That shows that the Minister either assumes that they are going to ship the whole lot to Durban, or he wants to make it so attractive that they will do so. Why should he interfere with the existing relations between the ports of the Union? The Minister says it is not a question of distance, because East London gets the same rate as Durban, but that is part of the old standing modus vivendi in regard to what the rate shall be for carrying traffic inland. Why should the Minister go out of his way to disturb the position as between the various ports of the Union. If he is going to give reductions to this company for the transport of their ore to their ports, why should he give Durban preference over all the other ports of the Union? Why should he assume that Durban is going to be the port through which they will ship. Why not leave it to the people themselves to choose their own ports?

My hon. friend has touched upon a very important aspect of the agreement. We said to the company “you must within a definite period of time establish reduction works.” I take it that the hon. member agrees that we are right in stipulating for that. East London cannot come into the picture as far as smelting works are concerned as they have no cheap power and coke. The company said “If you want us to establish reductions works at Colenso then you must be prepared to give us a reduction in the rate, because having to make our arrangements to ship our finished product, ferro-manganese, through Durban, it would also suit us to ship our raw manganese through the same port.” We the not going to dictate to the company where they shall take their traffic. If they wish to take advantage of the 5d. lower rate to East London they can go there, but we were interested in getting them to establish certain works in the neighbourhood of Colense so that the surplus power at that station might be utilised. Maritzburg has taken power from Colenso and Ladismith and Glencoe have also done so, but where is the big consumer to come from to take the power unless some new industry arises. Therefore we had every justification to give the company some inducement to go to Colenso.

I quite agree that it should be part of the agreement that the company establish their smelting works at Colenso. The agreement however provides that they shall carry over the line 250,000 tons in a year and subsequently 350,000 tons. Why therefore, although I have every sympathy with the Minister in his desire to get these works established in Colenso, should not the company be able to ship the balance of the ore where they please. I think the existing relation between Durban and the other ports should have remained undisturbed.

The mention of Durban seems to act as a red rag to a bull to my hon. friend the member for Yeowlle (Mr. Duncan). It has been so since 1910, and I suppose it will go on to the end. If the company concerned are prepared to pay 5d. per ton extra for railage on their ore to Durban, where there are better shipping arrangements, why should they not be allowed to do so? What harm can it do the country? It meant more revenue for the railways. Why should anybody object? Special rates have been made to divert traffic over and over again. We have had special rates for coal to Cape Town, flat rates on produce to all the ports, and others. But the most glaring instance I know of are the special rates given by the administration to induce or force 50 per cent, to 55 per cent, of the Union’s best traffic through the foreign port of Delagoa Bay. Why does the hon. member not object to these?

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) seems to be under the impression that because we stipulate that a certain percentage of ore must be treated at a certain point on the Natal main line that the agreement compels the company to export the remaining quantity of raw product through Durban.

I think you should leave the relation of the ports undisturbed.

But why should the railway surrender revenue unnecessarily?