brought up the report of the Select Committee on the University of Pretoria Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments, and specially with a new preamble, in accordance with the leave granted by the House on the 11th February, 1930.

Report and evidence to be printed; Bill to be read a second time on 21st February.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. Marwick from service on the Select Committee on the Cattle Improvement Bill and appointed Mr. Borlase in his stead.

I would ask the Minister of Finance when we can expect the estimates of revenue and expenditure for the current year ?

Probably during the course of next week.

Both the motion of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) and the amendment of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), although they hang together, fall naturally into two distinct categories. One deals with the differential rate of pay, and the other with the question of the minimum rate of pay. That portion of the motion dealing with the hours of duty has been so fully discussed that I do not propose now to go over that same ground again. Now these two other points formed no inconsiderable portion of the platform which was strong enough to carry the Pact into power at the general election of 1924. I imagine that there were very few supporters of the Pact who were addressing meetings at which there were a considerable number of railwaymen who did not put these two grievances in the forefront of their argument. I am not going to accuse the Minister or his colleagues of having made any deliberate pledges to put these two things right, the Minister can refer to his own speeches as reported in the press, and he will see for himself exactly what he did say on many occasions. But whether these words could be interpreted in the nature of an undertaking or not, I would go so far as to say that I am certain the Minister was sincere in addressing railway men of South Africa when he said that these were two subjects which he looked upon as genuine grievances. And he did certainly give the impression to railway men generally in South Africa that if the Nationalists were returned to power, these two burning questions were going to be put right. The Minister has now been in control of his department for six years. The position to-day is exactly as it was five years ago unless perhaps in some respects it is worse. It is necessary, I think, for us to consider for a moment how, dealing with the second portion of the motion—that is, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence)—this white labour policy on the railways has come into being. I think it is a popular idea in the country that the policy was inaugurated by the Nationalist government whereas anyone knows that the substitution of black labour with white in subordinate grades was instituted by Mr. Jagger. This should be remembered and I think it is necessary to consider the different outlooks and the different objects and ideals of the two Ministers who followed each other. These facts may be gleaned from the official bulletin which was issued by the Minister in a departmental form over the signature of the General Manager of Railways just prior to the last general election. The issue of that bulletin has been adversely criticized, and it has been described as an electioneering squib. But squibs have a way occasionally of going off at the wrong end, and this one certainly went off at the wrong end. In the bulletin issued by the Minister he not only said too little, but too much. When it came into my hands, I found it very useful. This is the document. Special Bulletin 135, date of issue 19th April, 1929. or just a few weeks before the general election. On page 319 you will find this—

Now this was during the reign of Mr. Jagger. Mr. Jagger’s outlook is one of those which is generally regarded as incorrigible, that is, that he will look upon his responsibilities from the business point of view; and so far as his control of railways is concerned, he dealt with the white labour policy from the business standpoint. He would never look at it from any other. The points suggested are two-fold. The railways being a business concern must be run on business lines and therefore, if white labour was to be substituted for black labour, it must be gradually increased so that it could be absorbed without interfering fundamentally with earning capacity. The other point was that no man should be placed on the railways at a wage on which he could not live. These were the two motives which actuated Mr. Jagger in introducing these two measures on the railways. That is confirmed by the bulletin issued by the Minister of Railways and when he took office this is what he said—

There we have it in black and white, viz., that Mr. Jagger was paying the too high wage of 8s. 6d. a day. I leave that point to analyze the difference between Mr. Jagger’s outlook on this matter and that of the present Minister of Railways. When the present Minister took charge, he was not prejudiced with any notion of running the railways on business lines; he saw the railways as a gigantic machine. It was a machine which, developed along lines of his own desire, was one which had great potentialities. I will not indicate the course of those potentialities, for there are ill-natured people who would say that they were political. I would be the last to say that he is conducting the railways on political lines. I prefer to think he was actuated by humanitarian motives, and those humanitarian motives guided him in placing those people on the railways in as great a number as the railways could possibly absorb at the time and in the shortest possible time. He found, he tells us, that those already on the railways were enjoying a salary of 8s. 6d. per day, which, in his opinion, was high. He could not introduce 15,000 men on the railways at from 8s. 6d. to 10s. a day, which is regarded in this country as being the minimum wage on which a man is expected to keep his family alive, so he introduced a new basis and this is how he did it. He decided that the minimum rate should be reduced from 8s. 6d. to 3s. per day. I have heard myself the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) at a public meeting state that the minimum rate of wages on the railways was 3s. per day and I heard him howled down, but it was strictly true. Of course, the minimum rate was not to stop at 3s. The Minister had to look forward to the time when these people would earn an increased rate of pay. This was the inducement to them to accept 3s. a day, in view of the conditions which would immediately follow. So they were told that, at the end of the first year, their pay would be raised to 3s. 6d. per day. At the end of the second year, they would get no less than 4s. per day. At the end of the third year the pay would be raised to 4s. 6d. per day if they gave satisfaction, and at the end of the fifth year they were to get 5s. per day. It was to take these men five years to get up to 5s. per day, that is a rise of two shillings a day in five years. Of course, that was not all. There were other so-called advantages which it is only fair to the Minister to indicate. The Minister knew perfectly well that a man could not live, whether single or married, under such conditions of pay. Therefore, to those who were unmarried he made an allowance of 6d. per day. I have been trying to enquire into the question of rents and I cannot find any lodging-house keeper charging 6d. per day for a room. If the hon. Minister knows where accommodation is to be got at 6d. per day perhaps he will indicate it. I cannot find it myself. The man also got 5 days’ leave at Christmas together with New Year’s Day, Ascension Day, Dingaan’s Day and Good Friday. That forms the whole sum and substance of the pay of these unfortunate people. That is the difference between the rates paid under the S.A.P. Government and the pay that rules to-day. Now it is all very well to have no direct responsibility in regard to the management of the railways and to get up in this House and suggest that the pay of these men should at once be raised to 10s. per day, but we must consider what 10s. per day really means. The Minister says he has placed something over 15,000 men at the average rate of pay of 6s. per day. The point is this, that every 1s. per day rise in pay to those men, represents £250,000 a year against railway earnings. An average rise of 4s. per day would therefore bring the extra cost of running the railway to something like one million pounds, which is absurd; but the railway rates to-day are already too high and you cannot raise them. Now you throw upon the users of the railway the sole responsibility of finding the money to feed and pay adequately the people placed on the railway by the Government. The rates are so high indeed that the railways are to-day being beaten at their own game by private motor transport on the roads. If there is to be any change in the rates it will have to be downwards. The Minister, however, has placed on the railways those 15,000 or 16,000 men without counting the cost, he cannot raise the rates to raise their pay. It is more likely that he will have to come to this House and tell us that he cannot run the railways any longer against private competition, and this brings me to the wide aspect of the question altogether.

There is nothing to answer so far.

Whether the Minister thinks there is anything to reply to or not, there are, at any rate 15,000 people waiting for his answer, this is where I wish to come to the Minister’s assistance. This policy has been adopted as a definite Government policy; is it not an economic policy, and the Government never professed that it was, it is a social problem, and had at the back of it the uplifting of those who were down, so occupation has been found for them, but the Government has not gone far enough, and instead of putting these unfortunate people in a position where they could rise, they have placed them in the position of sweated labour. Government sweated labour is the very worst in the world, because there is no need for it; one can well understand a struggling concern not being able to afford to pay an adequate wage, but the Government has no such excuse. The Government can pay men 3s. a day, and cannot be called to account except by the representatives of these people in this House. We are speaking for them to-day, and we do not find fault with the policy; we are in hearty sympathy with any scheme which has for its object the uplifting of those who are down and out, but we do say that while we are demanding an adequate rate of pay for these people, as we shall continue to demand, the burden of paying should not be borne entirely by the users of the railway, but by the consolidated revenue of the country. It is a national question, and should be dealt with from the national standpoint, and so I support the motion and the amendment.

We have listened to-day to some speeches by comparative back-benchers on the other side. Two of them, who now represent railway constituencies, have suddenly developed a love for the railway men, and they have come forward with certain demands which are embodied in the motion. Does the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) include “coloured” in civilized labour?

I said civilized.

Do you include coloured labour ?

I said civilized, and my motion is quite clear.

The hon. member knows that civilized includes European and coloured. I hope the Minister will take note that the hon. member said that he included coloured labour.

Do you exclude them ?

Why should I include them when I am not supporting the motion? Not one of the speakers has attempted to show what the cost will he, but in sheer ignorance of the cost to the country, they demand all these things from the Government. Surely when hon. members raise matters like this, they should first acquaint themselves with the cost. But they do not care whether it will cost 2d. or £5,000,000.

The cost will be £260,000.

To settle all these demands will cost at least £1,500,000.

Did you consider the cost of giving jobs to pals ?

We want to know whether the Opposition supports the motion. Will the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) support the motion, or is this mere party propaganda? Last year I read out extracts from the Nurahs magazine stating that there was every possibility of the railway men obtaining these things if the Saps, were returned to power, which God forbid. The Opposition is as silent as the grave. We have heard that there are 15,000 people waiting to hear the reply of the Minister; there are 77 members on this side of the House who would like to hear the reply of the hon. member for Yeoville. The Opposition has no right to propose motions like this unless they would be prepared to carry them out if they were in office. It was mere electioneering. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) was so overcome the other day that he burst into verse. He has now rather put his own party into a quandary, because I see further that he has threatened to divide the House on this point—he said so at Salt River the other day—I think this darling of the suburban aristocracy would not be doing his party a good turn. I would reply to his verse in kind, and say—

These things are very serious, and if they wish the country to believe that there is any hope for them in getting what they demand, they, as a party, must say they will support it. Our next question is: where is this money to come from? They say from the central Government. What folly, what ill-considered, ill-digested fad. What right has the Railway Administration to go to the central Government and demand this million and a half? It is the old cry, every time they want the Railway Administration to do something they do not want the users of the railway to be punished, but it must come from the general revenue. Why? It is the policy of the Railway Administration to employ civilized labourers, and, as the hon. member for Greyville (Maj. Richards) said, it was also their policy, and I will come to that later. Their’s was not a considered policy, but merely a make shift. They speak about this 8s. a day, but why do they not tell the House and country what else these labourers get beyond their pay? Do they tell the country that a man gets 6s. a day, plus a free house or an allowance in lieu thereof, free medical attendance—

They do not get it now, they pay for it.

They get free carriage of their foodstuffs from the nearest market. The wife gets a free pass monthly to the nearest shopping place, and they get a free pass annually—

interjected a remark.

I must ask the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) to stop his interjections.

As long as the hon. member does not burst into verse again, I will be satisfied.

On a point of explanation, I interrupted the hon. member because I thought he was making statements, wittingly or unwittingly, which were incorrect.

Did they tell the House how many of these labourers were promoted? From the general manager’s bulletin it appears there were 9,000 promotions in graded positions from 1,924 to 1,929. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) found a new cause of accidents and derailments. He probably followed his own lonely steam plough furrow, and has now discovered the cause. We heard before that there were other causes, that it was because these white labourers had been taken on, and incompetence. Now the hon. member says it is a question of overtime. Which is correct ?

On a point of order, I distinctly said in my motion it was the excessive hours.

As a point of explanation.

Exactly; does the hon. member want to take away this overtime from these men or not

They do not get it.

Certainly the hon. member did not ask that. Each day has to stand by itself; if that is so, there will still be these long hours. Will that make a difference with regard to railway accidents? The hon. member was pleading for the men to be paid for the day. Even if this motion goes through, there will still be these long hours and the derailments of which the hon. member spoke. Can hon. members point to one single instance of this which has been proved by investigation that this was the cause of derailments or accidents? They cannot do so. Well, what right has the hon. member to make these statements? The hon. member for Greyville referred to the general manager’s bulletin, and I am glad he accepts it. He read from that bulletin on page 319 how the South African party Government had introduced the civilized labour policy, but he did not read far enough, and it goes on to say—

The general manager says in this bulletin that there was no opportunity for advancement, and that this had the effect of disheartening the men. He also said that by implication it was understood by the outside staff during 1922-’24 that the policy was not to foster European labour.

That is an ex parte statement.

The hon. member is now running away. He relies on half the statement in the bulletin, and he did not read the rest. The general manager states that at that time stationmasters and others did not evince any interest in the employment of white labour. The labourer felt he was not wanted, and became sullen and unsettled. Then the general manager states that a notable change towards white labour occurred towards the end of 1924. Let us take the figures. On the open lines, there were, in 1921. 4,705 white labourers, and in 1924 there were 3,083, 1,622 less, and in that period, although the white labourers decreased, the native labourers increased by 9,994. The South African party Government, in the last three years of their administration, reduced the white labour staff by 1,622, and increased the native labourers by 9,994. How can they now say that they were the exponents of a white labour policy? What prospects had the white labourers under their regime? They had no prospects whatever; they became sullen and dissatisfied. Under this Government these men have a prospect. More than 9,000 labourers have been promoted. What shall we do if we cannot pay these men more than they are getting? I asked the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) what we should do. Are we to take natives in their place?

My reply was that the Treasury should subsidize the railways.

If the Government finds it impossible to pay them the wage you want, must we dismiss them ?

No.

I am glad to hear the hon. member say that, anyway. Hon. members on the other side have run away from another stand taken up by the Transvaal members some time ago. A resolution was passed at a South African party congress held in Pretoria in 1929, that unskilled labourers were to have 10s. per day, and certain privileges in the way of leave, and so on. Now the South African party have gone back 2s., according to their amendment. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and other members here are members of the Transvaal party. Are they in accord with this resolution for 10s. per day?

You are not worth 10s. a day.

I am rather surprised at hearing the hon. member make such an offensive remark. We have been good friends, and I did not expect this offensiveness from him. For that reason I prefer to say nothing in reply. If this resolution for 10s. a day, or the proposal for 8s. a day, were carried, do hon. members realize what the effect would be? Are they prepared to agree to it? Are the mercantile men and the farmers prepared to agree to it? I am afraid they are not. If this proposal were given effect to, and unskilled labourers were paid 10s. per day, what would you pay the graded men? Their wages would have to be increased. You could not pay the unskilled labourers more than you pay men occupying some of the graded positions to day. Men would be running to the railway service and other branches of the Government service, and that would put up the pay of others. I am afraid hon. members have not faced that point. No one can expect the Minister to do a thing like that, and throw the whole scale of wages out of proportion.

Say this at the next election.

The hon. member need not be afraid. I said the same thing at the last election. We should be glad to pay these men more, but we have to accept our responsibility. We cannot come here and move a motion before this House which is not even seconded by their leaders, and give hope to these 15,000 men, when we know very well the thing cannot be done. It is not fair nor right. If to-morrow the Opposition came into power, would these men get this payment? What then is the use of moving these motions? We should lead these men in the right direction, rather than give them false hopes. When the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) carries out his threat and divides the House on this point, and when his party does not support him, he will recognize as he said, those who are not his friends.

I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) on his speech, in which he has made clear the position he and his friends intend to take up. I do not wish to follow him in his attempt to make party capital out of this question. I can fairly claim to have been consistent in advocating the claims of railway men. I speak in the same voice to-day as six years ago. I would like to ask the hon. member one question. He said that 9,000 of the civilized labourers have already received promotion. I do not dispute the figures, but is the hon. member sure these figures reflect the true state of affairs as far as the genuine civilized labourer is concerned? I am afraid not, and I want to plead the cause of the real civilized labourer who has very little opportunity for promotion. I congratulate the railway men on the many new friends they have on both sides of the House. At one time, there was only a small coterie that took a vital interest in the grievances that are undermining the best traditions of our railway service. Unfortunately, some of their new friends are apt to go too far, and I feel that if all the suggestions made in the course of this debate were put into practice in the re-action which would be bound to follow, the last state of the railway men’s lot would be worse than the first. Regarding the hours of duty, whilst I recognize it is impossible to have an absolute 8-hour day at present, I, nevertheless, feel that in many grades of the service the hours are excessive, and that they could be considerably shortened without adding any undue burden to the state. I am told—the hon. Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that at some of our important junctions men are working twelve hours at a stretch; that includes meal hours which the men are compelled to take at their posts.

What class?

I believe one class is signalmen, and to emphasize that there are others, I quote from the Salstaff Bulletin—

These hours are far too long, and I think the Minister would be well advised to consider the whole question of shortening hours where possible and of giving additional help where duties become increasingly arduous. The second part of this motion deals with a grievance that I have consistently brought before the House since 1924. It is very pleasing to me to hear an ex-Minister of Agriculture, chairmen of chambers of commerce, and farmers advocating the abolition of the differentiation in the rates of pay in the railway service. That shows that the railway men have a good case, and that these conditions are not in the best interests of the service. The Railway Department has every right to lay down a new rate for new entrants, but when that rate is applied to men who were in the service prior to the introductions of the new regulations, it is unfair and arbitrary. Let me quote one or two instances to prove my point. Take the case of a lad who joined the service as an apprentice under certain conditions with certain expectations. He served five years’ apprenticeship and two years as an improver, during which time he became a thoroughly competent tradesman; he attended technical and night classes, and is, perhaps, one of the best qualified men at his trade, but, instead of getting the standard rate which was in force when he joined the service, because his improvership ended one day after the new regulations came into force, he receives 18s. per day instead of the 20s. he was led to expect when he joined the service. That is most unjust. Another instance is that of a man who entered the service twenty years ago. By good conduct, good work and skill, he earned well-deserved promotion, but owing to the fact that he is classified as a new entrant on transfer from one grade to another, he receives no added remuneration for his increased responsibilities. I again say I agree that the Administration has every right to lay down a new rate for new entrants. Let the new entrants serve a probationary period to qualify for the higher rate; but to classify a man as a new entrant simply because he is promoted from one grade to another, is unfair, and I think the Minister himself cannot justify it. Mr. Speaker, I now wish to make reference to the question of the civilized labour policy. I do not know whether my opinions agree with the opinions expressed on this side of the House, but I am speaking entirely for myself. I have always taken up that attitude, and I hope, so long as I am a member of this House, I shall continue to do so. I want to congratulate the Minister on the success of his civilized labour scheme, which has given employment to thousands who would otherwise not have been employed. I want to say this also: that I believe that if the Minister wanted 20,000 civilized labourers to-morrow under the same conditions, and at the same rate of pay as they are given to-day, he would have no difficulty in filling the positions. At the same time, I do feel that there is a good deal in the contention that the railways should not bear the entire cost of this scheme. This is unfair to the other grades of the service, and also to the users of the railway, who also need some relief. I am sure that every member of this House, on both sides, feels that 8s. per day is not an extravagant wage. I believe that the Minister himself, in spite of what the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) said, recognizes that the lower grades of the service are not adequately paid. I think the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), when he was Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, introduced a minimum wage of 1s. per hour in all public contracts. Surely if that is good for the public service, it should be good for the railways.

And it was a success.

My hon. friend says it was a success. I believe it. I believe also it would be a success on the railways. After all, how is it possible for any man with a wife and family to support, to exist on less than 8s. per day? Especially is that so when we remember that many of these men, when they came into the service, were absolutely destitute. I want to give one case to show the hardships some of the men have to endure. Only a few weeks ago a man approached me and stated that he had been in the service for about six years. He had a wife and ten children to support. He said that on one occasion he had acted in a graded capacity for 13 months, during which time he gave every satisfaction. Suddenly, because somebody had blundered, and work was not sent to that particular depot, that man was degraded and put back to 6s. 6d. per day. I only wish I were an orator. I could paint to this House a word-picture of what that means. Take that man with his wife and ten children. He comes home one evening and says: “I am now working in a graded position. Instead of getting 6s. 6d. a day, I am now getting 8s. 6d., and working piece work, which will bring it up to 10s. 6d. a day.” We find, in winter, that man’s boys going to school with boots on, things that they never had before. We find his little daughters going to school with boots and stockings on— things which they did not have before. We find on that man’s table meat, once or twice a week, and we find also that the little baby, who is not, perhaps, too strong, is able to get a small ration of milk every day. But, because somebody has blundered, that man was dropped from 10s. 6d. a day to go back and starve on 6s. 6d. a day. That is not an isolated case; it is typical of many others; these are the men I am pleading for, and I want to ask the Minister to do something in cases like these. Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate, certain allegations have been made against members of the Government for what they said during 1924. These statements may be true, or they may not be. I do not know, but I want to say this in regard to the hon. Minister of Railways, that he made his position on these matters very clear prior to the election of 1929. We are always ready to criticise the hon. Minister, and I must plead as guilty as most. But I think we also ought to give credit where credit is due. These questions that were raised in the course of this debate are burning questions at every railway centre. Just prior to the election of 1929 the hon. Minister visited Uitenhage, and publicly stated that he was not prepared to reconsider these questions. I think the attitude of the Minister was wrong, but I must say this: that I admired his candour, and I can only tell him that it cost his side quite a number of votes. In spite of the Minister’s public utterance, in spite of what he said, I am asking him to reconsider these questions on the lines I have put forward. I want him to accept the motion. After all, what does the motion do? It says “to consider the desirability.” Surely all we ask for is an enquiry. If we can get that, and if the Minister will give some relief, he would be restoring to the service that confidence that is so needed, and he would also give to the employees an incentive to do, perhaps, even better than they are doing at the present time.

I have listened attentively to the speeches in connection with the proposals before the House. I am glad to be able to say that, although I am always sympathetic towards our railway men, I do not allow my heart to run away with my head in such matters. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Maj. Richards) made me think of a strange story. A person who was not quite compos mentis went to his neighbour, who asked him how he was getting on, he said he was all right, but he could not understand the ostrich market at all; he said the week before last a Jew had come to his farm to whom he showed a bundle of feathers, the Jew said they were not first class, and offered him a small mice. The next week another came who said that the feathers were quite first class, but he offered him a small price. Therefore, he could not understand the ostrich market at all. After listening to the speech of the hon. member for Durban (Greyville), I must honestly say that I do not know what the position is. He says he cannot pay the railway labourers more, and make the railway rates higher. Yet he supports the motion for higher wages. I question whether this is not a mere opportunist proposal. I do not wish to make charges and say that election speeches have been made with a view to the next election. I do not say that the South African party is thinking of the election. I do not think of such things. My attitude is that our country is in a bad way, and before we contemplate an increase in expenditure, we must consider the position of the country. I thought that it was the acknowledged principle of our railways that they should be run on business principles, and that we should act as business men when we debated railway matters. I think that is the principle laid down in the constitution. We find, however, that the estimates of revenue and expenditure on the railways are not yet before the House. We do not know in the least, as yet, how much money there will be available. When a business concern considers its position at the end of the year it calls a meeting of shareholders to whom is then explained what the surplus is, so that it can be decided how that money is to be spent, how much should be put to the reserve fund, and how much should be distributed amongst shareholders. We have not yet got the railway estimates before the House, and I do not know what hon. members think. I, myself, am afraid when I examine the revenue and expenditure of the past few months, that there may quite likely be a deficit. We must look this fact in the face, and if there is a deficit, will this House be satisfied that approximately another millions should be added to the railway expenditure? I ask myself where the money is to come from. I have listened to the speeches on the opposite side, as well as that of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), who made a soap box speech here, and told the people that it was a scandal that they were paid so little, and that the money should come from the consolidated revenue fund. I agree with the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) in his complaint that the men find it very difficult to come out on the present wage. I agree with him, and the Minister knows it as well. But when he says that the money must come from the treasury, it is clear to me that that will not solve the problem. The money from the treasury can only be used for the white labourers that are employed. Then there are still more than two scales of workers, and the men who work more than 8 hours a day. The fact that we take the money from the revenue fund will provide nothing for those people. Something must also be done for them, possibly by way of extra leave, if funds permit, But we shall not be solving the question at all by agreeing to the suggestion which is made here. I agree with what hon. members opposite have said with regard to the local allowances, about which a distinction is being drawn in a very arbitrary way. A man on one side of the river receives the allowance, while the one on the other side does not. I am also in favour of an alteration in this respect being made when we have the money available, but as we are now going through a depression, and are probably going to have a deficit on the railways, it seems to me that this is not the opportunity to debate this matter. I do not want to accuse hon. members of making election speeches, but they ought to know just as well as any other hon. member, and just as well as the Minister himself, that they are rousing a hope amongst those people which cannot now be realized. I cannot support the motion.

It has been said that the railway users are not supporting the motion, but there is no reason why they should not do so, and I think the speech of the hon. member for Greyville (Maj. Richards) made it very clear that there was no idea in the motion of further taxing the users of the railways. I subscribe entirely to that doctrine, and go further when I say that the railway users in the north not only cannot stand any further burdens, but they cannot stand their present burden any longer. There is no intention of carrying this burden perpetually. However, I will not deal with that side of the question to-day. We have endeavoured to have the railway finances placed on a sounder and more reasonable basis. If three matters are put right— the continuance of the burden placed on the railways of making good the branch line losses, the extra cost of white labour, and the continuance of the preferential rates—there will not only be money enough to pay the labourers a living wage, but to meet all the reasonable requirements that can be demanded by the railways. The Minister has asked us whether we want to go back to a black labour policy. Let us look at the history of the matter. It was in 1924 when the real mischief began, when the Government came into power, and these white labourers came on month after month, and year after year, until this year the number is somewhere about 15,000. I challenge anyone to say it is a good policy, even in the interests of the people we employ, because I know men who have left their little homesteads, where they were eking out their living, and in all probability would have done all right to-day, but there was the lure of the towns and constant employment on the railway. It was John Bright who said that “the glory of England is her cottage homes.” It is true of South Africa too. The hope of South Africa is the homestead, not bringing your men from the country on to the railways. There is no progress there. I do not want to reflect in the least on these good servants of the railways, but, speaking generally, there are a great many who are unsuited to this class of work. We have come across it everywhere, and throughout the railway service to-day the class of men who compose the white labour there is not the class you will go and select for that work. I do not want to go further than that, and do not want to reflect on them in the least beyond the fact that, if you are going to run the railways as a business proposition and on business principles, you would not select the employees you have. I will come to my next point, which is: have we a right to employ them at all if we do not give them a living wage? The Minister has challenged us again whether we want to go back to the old policy, but I would very much rather see 5,000 or 7,500 men reasonably and fairly paid and well selected, than 15,000 on a wage we know they are unable to live reasonably upon; I do not say decently, because we know a man cannot live on 6s. a day. We have brought these men into the towns, and they are part and parcel of the railway service. Their families are growing up and their expenses become greater. You cannot go and employ them in increasing numbers on the present basis. It is up to the Government and the Minister to say this should be a charge on the consolidated revenue of the country. If that was done, I feel quite certain that there will be no difficulty about accepting such a motion, and the railway users would not be penalized. That is a better policy than the one you have at present, but it means a big change. I support the motion very heartily, not because I have a railway constituency, or because I have not; not because I am on this side of the House, or want to oppose the Government, but because I believe it will be a stepping stone to putting our railways on a reasonable basis and on lines on which they should go. What reply have we had from the Minister? He told us it was the policy of his predecessor. I almost suggest that he and his predecessor were wrong, but, accepting they are right, there is not the least reason why, as the years pass on, the railways should not be on a sound and satisfactory basis. The present position of our white labour is unquestionably unsatisfactory. I was delighted to hear the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) pay that compliment to the Minister, because I think he deserves it.

I am very glad that the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) intervened, because he understands what he is talking about, and the hon. member who moved the resolution does not. The resolution is very crudely worded, asking us to vote for an overtime rate. I do not believe in an overtime rate. I tell the men that I think the best thing that can happen when they get overtime is that they should be put on half rate, and that would do away with overtime. The hon. member was not really agitating for an increase in the overtime rate so much as he was opening up the old question of the 8-hour day. He referred to the hours of duty committee’s report, and he said that that report recommended an 8-hour day. It did nothing of the kind. The men who served on that committee allowed themselves to be bulldosed into introducing a principle that has never been introduced in any other part of the civilized world. They got away from the principle of every day standing by itself. The Administration grasped at that, and has stood by it ever since; and the men have to work 96 hours, and in the case of the examiners 108 hours. From this has sprung most of our troubles with regard to the 8-hour day. Although the hours of duty committee unanimously reported in favour of the adoption of the principle of a spread-over of 96 hours, that is no reason why the Administration should hide behind that, and not reconsider the position. One of the effects of the departure from the principle of every day standing by itself is that the men’s organization has gone to wreck and ruin. I do not think the railway men were right in letting their union go to pieces, because some of their representatives made a mistake. Another effect is that we have a trmendous amount of dissatisfaction to-day in the running staff of the service. As soon as the operating officers got a spread-over of 96 hours, they did not study how to bring down the hours of labour, and these operating officers will not put on their thinking caps as long as that principle stands. During the first week of their fortnight the men are worked to death, and during the second week they are at home the greater part of their time. I think the question should be again reviewed. I want to see a genuine 8-hour day established on the railway, as far as it is practicable. There should be a reduction of the hours, so that the men will have more time to spend in their homes and on recreation. The Minister is smiling at that. He knows that some of the men do not want that, but I can tell him that a large number do. They want more time to spend in their homes, and to devote to study and recreation. When this was introduced, this 96 hours spread-over, some of us urged the Minister to adopt an 8-hour day. He said the railway could not afford to go any further than he had gone, but he wanted the railway men to regard what he had conceded as an instalment. I suggest that the time has arrived when we might have another instalment. The aim of the railway men and of this House should be to try to establish an 8-hour day. When this question of an 8-hour day was raised in Britain, there was an outcry that the cost would be prohibitive. One of the first works in which it was introduced, the works of Sir William Arnott, showed that it was a sound proposition. He found that instead of an increase in cost, there was a slight decrease. I hope the Minister will fulfil his promise. With regard to differential rates of pay, I disagree a little with the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates). I agree with him that the apprentices and improvers who were in the service when this change was brought about at the end of March, 1923, should have been reckoned as in the service when their time expired, instead of being regarded as new entrants. I disagree with him, however, when he says that the Administration had a right to bring in differential rates for new entrants. Sometimes a new entrant is more efficient than a man who has been there a number of years, and yet he has to go on a lower scale. The whole principle is wrong. The right principle is that there should be a fixed price for the job whoever does it. If he is capable and efficient, there should be no differentiation in rates of pay. I want to touch on the question of wages of labourers. I regret the amendment moved by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). The hon. member does not seem to get away from the election atmosphere; he is more concerned to score some party advantage than anything else.

This from a labour man.

You never find me do that. I am only concerned to see the railway men get a fair crack of the whip and a fair deal. I suggest these labourers could be far better organized than they are at present. The slackness is in the supervision—in the organization of these men. If, instead of looking upon them as simply gangs of white men—like a gang of natives—if the officials would only take an interest in the men under their control and find out their abilities, in a short time the workmen could be organized in such a way that white labour would be an enormous success. No other country works on this gang system. Every man’s character and ability is worked out by the supervisor; if he is capable of better work he is promoted. These white labourers are often treated as kaffirs. No attempt is made to find out what they can do. We have some splendid stuff in these men; some of them are physically fine specimens, and also remarkably intelligent. It is urged that the cost of this would be prohibitive, but the cost of white labour would be justified by this policy. I am in favour of the Minister’s white labour policy, but I am not in favour of the conditions under which these men are working. I think the Minister is doing a good thing in at least training them, and infusing discipline in order that they may become useful citizens. We should at least give their children a hope of having a better opportunity than their parents had, so that in future South Africa will reap the benefit of this white labour policy.

It is clear that this motion by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) and the amendment of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) are intended to bring the white labour policy of the Government into discredit amongst the railway workers. I say it is an attempt of that sort because it is clear from the hollow land meaningless arguments used that other motives must be hidden behind them. What are the facts? A complete 8-hour working day for the railway workmen is asked for. To repeal the so-called Jagger retrenchment with reference to the difference in payment, and to give equal pay for equal work, and, further, the amendment asks that the European labourers in the railway service should be paid a minimum wage of 8s. a day. It has already been pointed out by hon. members that these proposals will cost the Administration £1,000,000 or £1,500,000. The question is whether the present, a time of depression and difficulties in the country, is the right time to ask for that extra amount from the Railway Administration. It is clear that there is something else behind it. The history of the 8-hour day is a little bit older than one day. There was a time when the railway labourers had the 8-hour day, and who took it away from them? It was the South African party, and they were told at the time that it was practically impossible to have the 8-hour day on the railways. Where were the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg (North) and Salt River then? Then their hearts were not yet inflamed on behalf of the railway workmen. Now they come here with these demands, and it is quite plain that they are trying to make a little political propaganda. Hon. members opposite would like to be known amongst the railway men as the protagonists of their interests, but what did the hon. member for Salt River say in introducing his amendment? I find in Hansard—

And he goes further and says—

What an unfriendly and merciless stab in the back to the poor-white labourer on the railway. Here the hon. gentleman lets the cat out of the bag. If it is economically impossible to pay the man 8s. a day, then, according to him, we must put them on the street. I want to defend this class of man in the railway service. When that side of the House was in office, thousands of that class of people who could not find work were walking the streets. They tried every day to get work, and they were fit to do it, but could not obtain it. And why not? Because the cheaper native squeezed the Europeans out of the railway service. Now hon. members opposite try to make the policy of the Government of employing white labour impossible. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) knows well enough that the Administration put up a boarding-house there where the lads could get good and decent accommodation for £2 5s. a month. Shortly before the election he visited that boarding establishment several times, and told the people there that they would get 10s., and not 5s., if the South African party came into power. The hon. member also knows that housing is being provided for the railway workers at Glencoe and Ladybrand. He knows that the Government spent £50,000 for housing white workers in Durban. I hope the Minister will also do so at Bloemfontein, because Bloemfontein is one of the dearest places in the Union for house rent. That class of labourer cannot come out on an allowance of 1s. 6d. a day, but if they get houses as in Durban and 5s. to 6s. a day, they will be very well satisfied. I just want to quote something else to show that the policy of the South African party was directed against the white worker. The late member for Cape Town (Central), the ex-South African party Minister, said in connection with the white labour policy of this Government—

That was the view of that ex-Minister, and it is still the view of the South African party, I fear. The proposals made to-day are nothing but an attempt of throwing the men back on to the street. The hon. member for Aliwal North (Mr. Sephton) said in this connection—

That is the attitude then of hon. members on the opposite side, but the acting leader of the Opposition, Mr. Krige, also spoke on the subject. He pointed out that if we employed Europeans, it would be impossible to reduce the railway rates. I wonder what his followers behind him who have made these proposals say about that? It is quite plain that an attempt is being made to render the civilized labour policy of the Government futile. In these circumstances I cannot vote for the proposals, although I sympathize heart and soul with the railway workers.

I think the House must have been struck by the silence of hon. members on the front Opposition bench. I know that my hon. friends on the Opposition bench say: “We are not the Government of the country at the present time. We are not responsible, and, consequently, it is not for us to lay down any policy.” They are, no doubt, entitled to take that attitude, but I say to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that if they are not prepared to support the extraordinary requests made by their supporters, they should say so, otherwise they are doing irreparable damage. False hopes are being raised in the minds of thousands of people by this irresponsible talk we have heard from their supporters. But we have not had one single word from the front Opposition bench.

1924.

We have heard that before. We have issued a challenge to give a quotation from any speech of a responsible member sitting on this side who has promised anything of the sort.

I can give you one.

We have had these allegations before that promises were made, but it has never been established that these promises were actually made, and if hon. members know of them let them give them to the House now. They are raising false hopes in the minds of a large number of European labourers, namely, that the wage to be paid to the European labourer will be raised materially.

You raise their wages, and never mind their hopes.

Yes, I know the policy of the hon. member. It is the policy of relief works. The Opposition had no policy in regard to this matter, except letting it develop. Responsible hon. members opposite are not prepared to take their responsibility in regard to this matter. They leave it to their back-benches to make the most irresponsible statements, and they themselves have not the courage to repudiate them. We are prepared, so far as we are concerned, to defend the policy we are carrying out at the present time. We believe that policy to be in the interests of the country. We believe that through that policy we have been able to save thousands of families. I shall later on give figures to prove that this policy has been responsible for placing thousands of families in the position of being self-respecting citizens in this country.

Not in urban areas.

Yes, including the urban areas, where thousands of them have been promoted.

On promoted wages !

That is the whole point. I shall give figures to show how we have actually promoted them in the last five or six years. I wish to say a word in regard to the motion moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane). I think it must have been quite clear from what has been said by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg is not aware of the whole position in regard to the application of the 8-hour day. That committee reported in August, 1925, and I advise him to study the report before he deals with this question again. The very next speaker after the mover of the motion, repudiated him with regard to the application of an 8-hour day. He said at once that so far as he was concerned he accepted the report, and would not identify himself with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg. What is the position at the present time? We have been carrying out the report of this Hours of Duty Committee, on which the employees themselves were represented. We have carried out that report in toto except—

Except?

I shall give you the exceptions in regard to the position of guards and examiners. The committee reported that they should be placed on an 8-hour day, a 96 hours fortnight. We were not able to do that, but we put them on 108 hours per fortnight, or, in other words, on a 9-hour day. It must be remembered that these men previously were on a 10-hour day, so their position was improved, although not to the extent which was contemplated in the report of this committee. With regard to signalmen, if the hon. member for Uitenhage will give me cases where signalmen are alleged to be working longer hours than 10, I shall be glad to go into those cases. In all large cabins the signalmen work a 48-hour week, or an 8-hour day, and it is only in the case of less important cabins that they work 10 hours. I know of no case where they work more than 10 hours a day. To return to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (Mr. Deane), the principle was distinctly laid down in this report that the spread-over system was to form part of the working hours. If we depart from that spread-over system and again adopt each day standing by itself, I would point out to hon. members that the cost of running our railways would be very much increased. Where other countries have dealt with this question they also have introduced the spread-over system. We have thus largely carried out the recommendations of the Hours of Duty Committee, and if we now let each day stand by itself we would be departing from the recommendations of the committee on which the men had equal representation. Hon. members may think that we have not done enough for the running staff, but in February, 1926, we gave increased benefits to the running men at an annual cost of £150,000. Last year we gave them another instalment in regard to booking-on and off time, which cost £65,000. In partly carrying out the report of the committee, so far as the running staff is concerned, we are spending £215,000 per year additional. I ask the House whether any responsible hon. member will seriously—and not only in order to catch votes—maintain that the time is opportune to give increased benefits to the running staff? Of course not. Under these circumstances there is no justification for going further at the present time. I ask the hon. members who are responsible for the motion what is the good of raising the hopes in the minds of our employees, when hon. members know perfectly well that the country and the Administration cannot bear additional burdens. The hon. member, in the course of ‘his speech, made some most extraordinary allegations with regard to excessive hours worked by the running staff. I asked the department to give me a return of the schedule runs. Out of 2,272 separate and distinct schedule runs, only 41 or 1.80 per cent, are over 12 hours. I do not say that there is not a larger number of actual runs of 12 hours and over than 41, but these are the only ones scheduled. Of course, longer runs occur when there are crossing delays or engine breakdowns and other factors when hours are worked in excess of 12 per day, but these are circumstances over which the Administration and its officers have no control. The hon. member gave me the impression that he suggested that the senior officers manipulated these excessive hours in order to penalize the men.

I said nothing of the sort. I said that these men are working excessive hours, and if they complain, they are penalized by being booked-off for a time.

That is very nearly the same as saying that the hours are manipulated. He says in effect that these hours are manipulated so that these unfortunate men may be penalized. I definitely repudiate any suggestion of that sort. If the hon. member will read the report, he will see that hours worked over and above 12 for a scheduled run of over 12 hours do not go into the pool, but for these hours the men are paid at overtime rates. No senior officer will unnecessarily schedule men to work more than 12 hours per day, because, if he does, the expenditure at once goes up, and it is against our policy as laid down by the Administration.

Read your statement.

If the hon. member will get down to the facts, he will not make these wild irresponsible statements, which are most unfair to the senior officers. Sometimes the men may work very long hours, and then they are booked-off for a longer period in order to give them a rest. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) said the men wanted an actual 8-hour day. I have a very great respect for the hon. member, who, I believe, at one time worked on the railways, but my experience over six years has definitely established that our running men do not desire an actual 8-hour day. I could give instances where I have attempted to reduce Sunday time and overtime, and I have had serious protests as a result. The men are only too glad to earn overtime, which, I think, is undesirable, for I prefer to see the men working an 8-hour day and to work short Sunday time. The railways are now in their slack season. If we had built up our service so that there would be no overtime when the traffic was at its peak, we would now have a lot of men on our hands with nothing for them to do. If the running men work less than 96 or 108 hours a fortnight, we have to make up their guarantee.

made an interjection.

I am not going to deal with the allegation that the increase in accidents is the result of these long hours. There is no proof for that statement. I want to deal with the next point, the introduction of the 1923 rates of pay for artizans. I have on previous occasions explained, and again repeat, that it is quite impossible for the Government to consider restoring these rates for artizans only. The cut made by the previous Government extended not only to artizans, reducing the basic coastal rate from 20/- to 18/-, but the cut was made over the whole of the railway service and over the general service. It is therefore quite impossible for us to give artizans the old rates without restoring them to other public servants. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North (Mr. Deane) is evidently under the impression that the men in the workshops of Maritzburg are not earning good wages. I find that the average (new rates) earnings per artizan there is £33 12s. 9d. and the highest £41 7s. 4d. The rates for other workshops are, Pretoria, average £38 10s. 4d. and highest £55 11s.; Bloemfontein, average £38 2s. and highest £46 9s. 2d. I need not give the other figures. They are more or less the same.

What is the lowest?

I have not the figures here, but am prepared to give them. The average is the only fair basis to give; you then include both the slow and the fast men. The extra cost to the Railway Administration would be approximately one and a half millions if we were to agree to restore the pre-1923 rates of pay to all grades. I want to say quite definitely that it is quite impossible for the Government to agree to that.

In 1918 the conference of the Railway Administration agreed that artizans should be on a different basis.

The artizans must be satisfied to take the cut as well as the others.

What about piece work ?

They are getting piece work rates and are doing very well. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) dealt with two types of cases. He asked for information about an apprentice who was in a workshop before the cut was made and finished his articles just after the cut was made. The position is, as the hon. member knows, that an apprentice is not bound to us, neither are we bound to him. After his five years’ apprenticeship, the apprentice is free to go, and begins his actual service with us only after finishing his articles. If you once make an exception, where are you going to stop? No, I am afraid it will not be possible to assist these workmen. After all the point is, these apprentices willingly entered into the service on the new rates of pay.

Do you not reckon their service for pension purposes ?

I am referring to wages and take the actual date of employment. They do it knowingly and willingly, on the new rates of pay.

Willingly, but what you force them to do.

There is no force whatsoever. We give them a certificate on completion of their articles.

You say they are not in the service ?

While they are serving their apprenticeship, they are not permanently in the service, and if they have finished they are free to go. As to the other point made by the hon. member, if a man is promoted, he gets promotion under the new rates of pay. I am not prepared to depart from that, because men under the Central Government, and others are affected in the same way. I now come to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), who I notice not only addressed this House, but made use of his soap-box and told the country at Salt River, what he is going to do in Parliament. It is quite clear the hon. member is qualifying for an important position, and I therefore warn the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), to be on his guard. The hon. member for Salt River, whatever his leaders say, is going to divide the House. I hope he will. I can tell him he is going to get the disappointment of his life. It is so easy to promise all these things in order to catch votes, and irresponsible men do that sort of thing, but men who realize their responsibility are more careful. The hon. member for Salt River exclaimed “You are underpaying them. You should pay them more.” I asked the hon. member whether that meant that if we paid the European labourers more, and it became uneconomic, we were to revert to the former policy of native labour. Then I was told that we should get the money from the central Government. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) also said that the central Government should finance the Railway Administration. Let me say once more that the Government do not consider our civilized labour policy in the nature of relief work. We treat it as a part of our national system of running our railways, in the same way as British companies in Great Britain run the whole of their railways with European labour. May I suggest to my hon. friend, the member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), that if he is out for cheap labour he might look around the world, and he might get labour even cheaper than that of the native people here. If we are serious in our policy of building up a white civilization, then I ask is it right that we should leave this policy to the will of different governments from time to time, one government employing these men and the next letting them go? Is that sound? It is very like some of the policies of my South African party friends; it will not bear examination. My hon. friend says that our policy has not been a success I know that as a good South African he takes a keen interest in these matters, and I am sure that when I give him the figures, he will agree with me that we have every reason to be proud of these men who have come into the service, many of them with very few opportunities before they came, men who have drifted off the land on account of drought and adverse conditions there. They have come in to our service, and thousands of them have made good.

Are they all satisfied ?

The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) was not satisfied with the Quota Bill. That was a very reasonable Bill. I am afraid there may be some white labourers who are not satisfied. But here are the facts. Since April, 1924—I hope the hon. member for Hospital will note this—no less than 12,363 labourers have been promoted to graded positions. During 1929 alone we have promoted almost 2,000. Is not that something to be proud of ?

They were not genuine labourers.

What were they, then ?

They were so-called labourers.

They were promoted to graded positions. If we hold out false hopes to these people we shall destroy what has developed to such an extent in them, their desire to make good. I could tell the House some of the experiences I have had with regard to some of these European labourers who have come in from the countryside, men of over forty, and some cases over fifty, attending the educational classes provided for them, and qualifying in standard six. When you have that spirit among our labourers, should it not be encouraged? All over the country we have established educational facilities to train them, and I am proud to say they are making excellent use of those opportunities.

They have to pay for it.

The hon. gentleman who interrupts, knows absolutely nothing about the subject. The fact of the matter is that we deduct 5s. per month in order to ensure that these men attend regularly. If they attend regularly, that 5s. is refunded to them.

Tell the House how many you have de-graded in the last six months, and how many you have de-graded at Pietermaritzburg.

The case the hon. member so laboriously built up has tumbled down, and now he wants to draw a red herring across the trail. If the hon. member knows of any case where a man has been unjustly de-graded, all that he need do is to advise that particular labourer to appeal in the ordinary way. His appeal will be dealt with sympathetically and fairly. Hon. members talk about discipline in the service, but they should bear in mind that when cases of alleged grievances are brought to their notice, they should advise the employee to have these matters dealt with under the regulations. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) has dealt with the amendment of the hon. member for Salt River. Among the civilized labourers on the railway, there are the coloured labourers. Does the hon. member for Salt River include the coloured labourer when he talks about a wage of 8s. per day ?

I mean exactly what the Minister means.

I take it that the amendment of the hon. member means that we are to pay our coloured labourers 8s. per day? Is that your definition of the amendment ?

I am dealing with the Minister’s definition.

We are not now dealing with the Minister’s definition; we are dealing with the amendment of the hon. member. The House wants to know whether the party opposite, or a number of them, want to pay coloured labourers 8s. per day? It is a reasonable question. Do you want it or do you not? There is silence on the other side. If any member of this House had any doubt as to the electioneering intentions of this motion, and amendment, that doubt is now dispelled. I expected to hear the voice of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) on this matter; will he tell us what the policy is ?

I want to know your policy.

There is no doubt as to our policy; we are carrying it out. I understand the motive of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). In the country it will be said that he is a South African party member, and that he wants to give all these concessions. Divide the House? Of course he will divide the House. His leader has already run away from him; others will follow. It is pure electioneering. I would ask hon. members to be serious. These men are in a most unfortunate position; they feel deeply when you arouse expectations in their minds you cannot fulfil.

As you did.

I have already challenged the hon. members to give the facts in this regard. The House will be surprised to learn that it will cost about £600,000 per annum to apply a minimum rate of 8s. per diem to all civilized unskilled labourers employed by the Railway Administration. Is the hon. member for Salt River serious? No. He comes from the soap box at Salt River and thinks his irresponsible statements good enough for this House. People at Salt River will soon find him out, and he will not be good enough for the electors of Salt River. The hon. member will appreciate when he has been in this House a little longer that serious matters must be dealt with in a serious manner.

On a point of order, how does the Minister arrive at that £600,000?

It is a very simple calculation; 2s. a day extra, and in many cases far higher, according to the wage now earned and spread over all civilized labourers. I am quite prepared to work out the sum for the hon. member.

It comes to £11,400.

Officials in my department worked it out, and I have every confidence in its accuracy. The exact estimated sum is £625,000 per annum.

Well, it is quite incorrect.

The hon. member will have his opportunity of discussion later.

Now you are running away.

I want to clear up one point; it is stated that a large number of our European labourers are only getting 3s. 6d., or 4s. a day. I have on previous occasions explained that in the case of young labourers the minimum is 3s. per diem, and further at age 18, 3s. 6d. a day; at age 19, 4s.; at age 20, 4s. 6d.; and at age 21, 5s. and over, with increases to 5s. 6d. and 6s. per diem as laid down. I will not keep the House much longer. It seems clear that hon. members do not fully appreciate our probationer scheme. We place them in the goods sheds, in stations, at harbours and other branches of the service as learners, and train them intensively for periods varying from 12 months to 2 years. A large majority of these boys in a very short time are promoted to higher positions. If the hon. member complains about the wages paid, why has he never complained about the wages paid to apprentices? During the whole of their apprenticeship they do not get very much, but we are training them during the whole period of five years. In some shops overseas apprentices have to pay a premium. We at least pay them something while training them.

What proportion get promoted ?

A large proportion. If they are not satisfactory we tell them so and they leave the service.

That shows that they are not white labourers.

It is evidently impossible for me to try to convince the hon. member.

There are many men with families.

We pay our labourers, age 21 years and over 5s. in the first year, 5s. 6d. in the second year and 6s. in the third year, and from the very beginning they get free quarters, or, if free quarters are not available, allowances are paid, being 1s. at the coast and 1s. 9d. in local allowance district 5 in the Transvaal, so that white labourers in district 5 with three years’ service receive 6s. plus 1s. 9d., 7s. 9d. a day in cash, if free quarters are not provided.

If they are over the age of 21.

Yes.

He won’t get the 1s. 9d. a day if he his not married.

No, single men receive an allowance varying from 6d. to 10d. These men in addition are entitled to leave privileges, travelling concessions and the full benefits of the sick fund. I want to say a word in regard to their sick fund privileges. Much has been made of the point that we are asking single men to pay 2s. 9d. a month, and married men 3s. 6d. a month for their privileges in connection with the sick fund. They now enjoy full privileges. Formerly, the European labourer did not enjoy full privileges. The Administration pays the balance of the employee’s share of the contribution of the sick fund, in addition to the 75 per cent, departmental contribution. On a conservative basis, all these privileges are calculated to be worth 1s. 4d. per diem to the labourer. If hon. members will take the 7s. 9d., plus the 1s. 4d. for privileges, they will see that these men are now receiving 9s. 1d. in cash or kind. When hon. members talk about 8s. a day, they have forgotten all the privileges given to the labourer which I have mentioned.

They cannot eat these privileges or clothe their families with them.

No, but they are very valuable all the same. I do not say it is a wage on which they can live in luxury. I know they cannot. We are doing everything we can to assist these men to help them to become, what they are in essence, real good citizens. Reference has been made to the policy of my predecessor. If the reports of the Railways and Harbours Board are studied, it will be seen that under the South African party administration the number of European labourers dropped, and the number of natives increased by thousands yearly. If hon. members question that, I shall give them the figures again, but I am sure they do not require them. On the 18th February, 1924, the late general manager, Sir William Hoy, who, I must say, was always a good friend to the white labourers, wrote to the then Minister, Mr. Jagger. He, stated that—

He stated, further, that it was difficult to withhold the privilege tickets from the casual European labourers. I hope we have heard the last of this matter. If we are to solve this most difficult problem of dealing with a large number of our people who have not been able to make good on the land, and who have flocked to the towns and cities, we must face the position frankly. I say quite definitely that we refuse to adopt the policy of the South African party, namely, relief works.

You are doing relief work all over the country.

But this is not relief work. While we have every sympathy, and have proved our sympathy with the European labourer and the coloured labourer, I must say definitely that the Government is not prepared to accept the motion of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) or the amendment of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence).

I quite agree with the Minister who has just spoken on this subject. This question of what you have to pay civilized labourers is a national policy. I entirely agree with the Minister, but I do not agree with the Minister when he says, and it is pretty evident he is laying it down as a principle, that the wage basis of the European and civilized labourer, and one must include the coloured labourer, has got to be at the miserable rate at the start of 3s. a day, ending at 5s. 6d. or 6s. 6d. a day, as the case may be. There has been a good deal of haziness in regard to these wages. One person said the wages of the civilized labourer on the railways are 6s. 6d. per day, others say 7s. 6d., and others again say 5s. 6d., and really we have not known exactly where we are. In arriving at 9s. 1d., I take exception to the Minister, including in it so-called benefit. To be able to call upon a doctor is an excellent thing, but that benefit is cut away because the white labourer has to contribute towards the cost.

The married men contribute 3s. 6d. per month and the single 2s. 9d.

It is a very painful experience to sit here and listen to the Government of all the talents and composed of people who claim to be labour representatives, stating categorically, explicitly and emphatically that the present rate is going to be the standard one for railway labourers. The Minister told us that the only alternative is relief work. I am afraid the Minister was pouring out his words at such a very rapid rate, as he usually does, that when he said that, he floundered in a mass of his own verbiage. If this is the best the Government can do, it is very barren of statesmen, and it shows to the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) the railway member for Bloemfontein, and the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin), what a hole they have got themselves into in associating themselves with the Government, and, incidentally, it shows how little influence they have in the counsels of a party, or in shaping a policy through their representatives in the Cabinet in this very important debate. These men were sent to Parliament by their constituents in the belief that they were going to press for a wage for the workers which would enable them to live decently and in comfort. The Minister accused hon. members here, and especially the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), of playing to the gallery, making political propaganda, and of raising the hopes of these poor unfortunates employed by the state, and, in fact, that he and others who supported him have been talking with their tongues in their cheeks all the time. I do not know whether that is true or not, but I have a right to draw deductions from the serious statements and solemn resolutions carried by the men whom the hon. gentleman represents. If that hon. gentleman, and those who supported him this afternoon and last Tuesday, can be rightly accused of untrue, false and faithless political propaganda, what on earth is to be said of those other people ?

You supported the same policy.

And I do to-day. And I do so consistently, and when I had a small opportunity I tried to put it into practice.

And supported the Government.

Ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours! I went out of the Cabinet shortly after. In conference assembled, seven or eight of them, the Minister of Defence, the dominating factor of that conference, either laid it down himself or through his two or three satellites that not 8s. should be paid in industry, including the railways, but 10s. These tailors of Tooley Street came determined to make this Government pay 10s. a day, and if they are sincere, what on earth are we to say about these people who should have some influence on the counsels of the Government? I want to take my stand on this: That there is another line of policy—the railways and other industries of this country can pay a wage sufficient for a man and his family to exist upon in decency and comfort, and the inevitable and practical result is going to be increased prosperity to the whole of the country. I know my friends here and myself are rowing their own canoe in this matter.

made an interjection.

It is most unfortunate that the only measure the hon. gentleman can get of the stature of other people is his own, and it is many inches short. Does the hon. member believe or not that it is quite competent for this country to pay the labourers of the country 10s. a day, and that it is its duty to do so ?

I do.

Then I am going to ask the hon. gentleman to carry his statement to its logical conclusion, and when the ministry turns it down, as it will, he should get out of that party and support the party which he knows will honestly try to bring this about. The Minister of Defence will not get out until he is kicked out when they have no more use for him. The Minister of Railways gave us some figures with regard to the cost of increasing the pay of these labourers, and figures have been given over and over again which are regarded as a knockdown blow to anybody who is moving a resolution of this sort or supporting it. Let us take the highest figure that has been mentioned. Supposing it cost one million and a half. Let us argue conversely for a moment, and let us cut off 50 per cent, of what you are paying the railwaymen to-day. Will it improve the railway or the general prosperity of the country if you cut off that 50 per cent.? I make bold to say that by the mere paying of these men more money to the extent of a million and a half you will increase the spending power—the effect on the business of the country —by 15 millions. Every man of them will spend every penny that he gets. Even the artizan in the Pietermaritzburg workshops who is making £33 a month, as the Minister told us, spends the money in this country on the requirements of his household. The more you increase the wages the more development you have in the country as a whole, and the more money comes back to the railway to pay the increased wages.

Make it £1 a day.

Yes, make it £1 a day. We have members here who have not a soul above a mealie bag, and they cast decisions in this House on legislative enactments which bind the people of the Union. Now I ask you to go to people greater than I for information, the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Finance. I am going to quote from the Christian Science Monitor.

Not the Jewish Chronicle this time.

No, after the Quota Bill I decided to cut out the Jewish Chronicle. I want to inform hon. members that the Christian Science Monitor is one of the foremost papers in the world so far as religious and ethical matters are concerned. These are reports of meetings held at the instance of Mr. Hoover where, after that tremendous manipulation of stock at Wall Street, it was felt that the result might be a tremendous slump in industry throughout the country. Mr. Hoover decided to call together all the best business brains of America to decide what to do. They were unanimous in opposing the express opinion of the Prime Minister when he made that depressing speech in the country a short time ago. Mr. Hoover said—

He was alluding here to the fear of depression. Acting upon this immediately, Mr. Ford said—

He raised the wages of every man in his employ by one dollar a day. The business people at the instance of Mr. Ford, and others, have tried to increase the wages of the workpeople and to employ more, and, at the same time, to cheapen the product of the labour of these higher paid individuals they are employing, realizing a fact that ought to have been apparent to the Minister of Railways and Harbours and the Minister of Finance years and years ago, that if you have not the spending power in the country you cannot do the business, neither trading nor transport nor railway nor any other sort of business. The only way in which you can accomplish that is to put the spending power into the hands of the people. Translate the American people to the South African people, and you have the whole thing. It applies as emphatically to us as to the American people in this time of their fancy or anticipated struggle. Something should be done in the direction of raising the standard wage of the white labourers and of everybody else. Am I to understand, is the country to understand, and are the artizans on the railways to understand, that because the Jagger regime introduced that pernicious differential scale amongst the artizans—2s. between them—£1 in the case of the old employee, and 18s. a day so far as the new entrant is concerned—are we to understand that because the South African party rightly or wrongly introduced that scheme, that there is no responsibility resting upon the shoulders of the Minister to remove it? Does it make it right because it can turn back upon the South African party and say: “Ya, we did it.” Does that make it right? I am satisfied because I was engaged originally, unfortunately, in association with the hon. gentleman in that famous general election that put them into power. The vast mass of the people of this country put them back into power because they said that they were not going to continue the conditions that had been imposed by hon. members on this side of the House, but that they had a fixed determination and an expressed determination, despite the denials of the hon. gentleman to alter things. We cannot put our fingers upon specific speeches or quotations from speeches made by the hon. members. But the Prime Minister himself started the ball rolling. The impression was abroad, and the opinion was conceived and used with intent to create that impression, that they would upset all the old conditions of the South African party and improve the conditions. I say from experience —and I warned the Minister when I was a close colleague of his—that he was getting himself into bad odour with the men on the railways, because they said, with justice, that the conditions were worse under the Pact Government than they were under the South African party Government.

Do you believe that?

I do.

You should establish it.

I shall establish it.

On the motion of Mr. Madeley the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 28th February.