Like the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), I very much regret the Minister did not see his way clear to give us a statement when he introduced this Bill.

Safety first.

We all want safety first, but also safety last, especially when we remember that the conditions and prospects of the railways have altered very materially since the general manager’s report was issued. At the time that report was written it looked as though we were in for another prosperous year, but unfortunately the returns have fallen very considerably, and we will be lucky if the Minister’s assurance that the deficit will not be a large one is realized. Personally I do not think there is much cause for great alarm if the situation is met in a businesslike and statesmanlike manner. Our management is to be tested for the first time, and I want it to realize that it is the little things that matter, and that we cannot afford to ignore anything, however trivial, which may affect our railways. The Minister himself should set the example, and welcome suggestions and criticisms which bring to his notice any little matter which affects his department. I see the Minister nods, and I am glad that he does. It has become apparent the motor lorry has become a very important competitor with the railways for all classes of traffic. The motor lorry is prepared to take any class of traffic that is offered, and unless the Minister realizes that, more and more of our freight will be taken away from us. Recently we have seen in the newspapers that very large quantities of wool have been transported to the coast by motor lorry, and while this is very regrettable, the railways themselves are very largely to blame. Last year I visited Colesberg, and one of the leading farmers told me there that he always sent his wool to Port Elizabeth by rail, but owing to the fact that it cost too much to patronize the railways he was very seriously considering buying a motor lorry and doing his own transport. He mentioned that he always endeavoured to get his produce on the market at a certain date, but owing to the fact that last season it took the railways seven days to convey his wool a distance of 270 miles, he lost the favourable market and his wool realized over £200 less than it would have done if he had been able to get it on the market at the date for which he had arranged. Our farmers are all anxious and ready to patronize the railways, but I ask the Minister what can you expect a farmer to do when his produce is delayed, and in one transaction there is a loss of over £200.

Sometimes it is the other way round.

I am glad of that interruption because it shows that the hon. member has knowledge of delays also. There is no doubt that at times serious delays occur on our railways, and those in charge of them must realize that transport is no longer their sole monopoly, and when these delays occur competition is bound to follow. Recently I have had cases brought to my notice in which it took from 12 to 14 days to get goods from Cape Town to Uitenhage, a distance of 652 miles, and seven days from Kingwilliamstown to Uitenhage, a distance of 264 miles. Delays like these are a disgrace, and should not be possible on railways like ours. At one time it took six to eight days to get goods delivered from Port Elizabeth to Uitenhage, a distance of 20 miles. But in justice to the Minister I must say that it was soon altered after I drew his attention to it, and we have now a service which can be compared with any in the world. But unfortunately those delays started a motor lorry service which is still competing with the railways to-day. The time is rapdily coming when the railways will have to look for, cater for and induce the public to use the railways, and the sooner those responsible realize that the better. In regard to passenger traffic great care must be taken, otherwise serious competition will arise. Native and coloured passengers continually receive scant attention at the hands of the administration, and we must realize that their custom and money is as good as those of others. To show these patrons of the railways realize the position I would like to quote from Imvo, a native paper of Kingwilliamstown, of last September, and this is what it said—

This grievance has been brought to the notice of the authorities on more than one occasion, and we can see in the remarks I have just read the beginning of road passenger traffic between Kingwilliamstown and East London. In fact it was stated to me by one of the leading townsmen of “King” that the railway service to East London was so slow, uncomfortable and inconvenient that all decent people go by car. We are still notoriously short of passenger rolling stock and at times the department uses coaches and saloons which are a disgrace, to our railways. The public is defrauded by being given second class accommodation and charged first class fare. This is openly done by the putting of the figure “1” on second class compartments. Recently I was told that at a certain depot coaches which had been labelled to be taken to the workshops for repair had these notices removed and the vehicle put into traffic again evidently as long as the undergear is passable no notice must be taken of the interior. Judging from reports in the press it seems that complaints in regard to the disgraceful way passengers are treated are universal. Mr. Elliott, the assistant manager at Cape Town, in an interview with the Cape Times recently endeavoured to make the best of a bad case, but he was candid enough to tell the truth. He said that it was very difficult to keep the carriages as clean as they would like to. He admitted that they were not as clean as they ought to be, and he said it would necessitate almost doubling the cleaning staff. What a crime, to give a few hundred men the employment they sorely need, and on work the public have every right to expect will he done! Mr. Elliott went on: “naturally, in the season, things are worse. Thousands of people are constantly travelling, and all available rolling stock is needed all the time.” Mr. Elliott has given the game away. “All the rolling stock is needed” whether it is fit for passengers or not. Those of the public who think that the Minister or the authorities are going to do something will be sorely disappointed, because I see, from the Estimates, that the item for the cleaning and heating of coaches is £2,999 pounds less than in the previous year. I have been told of a case where passengers were compelled to travel in a saloon in which the door of the corridor was missing. This state of affairs is all the more regrettable because, in some of our workshops, carriage builders have not enough work to do, and some of them have had to be put on truck repairing which has prejudiced them with respect to their piece-work earnings. Every year I draw the Minister’s attention to the shortage of work in these departments, and when he replies it is quite evident that the information he receives does not tally with what is actually taking place. At one of our depôts I saw coaches which were commenced a year ago, and which had the bottoms and ends completed, but owing to shortage of timber, the work could not be proceeded with. The logs had now arrived and the pillars, etc., were being cut and rushed to the job without any seasoning whatever. This is the more remarkable when we know the department has some idea of the value of seasoned timber, because the general manager, on page 125 of his report, states that in consequence of timber being well seasoned, it is anticipated that the cost of subsequent repairs will be reduced to a minimum. The appointment of bonus work inspectors is also causing a great deal of annoyance and dissatisfaction, and is destroying the spirit of co-operation which has previously existed. I am going to give the Minister a concrete case, and I hope he will take notice of it. In the erecting-shop at Uitenhage, in spite of handicaps, locomotives are repaired more expeditiously than at any other place in the Union, so much so that foremen from other centres have been sent to this depôt to see how it is done. The general manager, on page 123 of his report, says that the number of days locomotives were under repair in these shops has been reduced by 33 per cent, during the past six months. This is a splendid record, and I believe that for the output of engines, thus depôt leads the way. This has been brought about by the closest co-operation between the foremen, chargemen and the men, and now, in spite of these results, a bonus work inspector has been appointed from another centre which cannot be compared with this centre for efficiency. Naturally, he must justify his position, and although he has only been there since the beginning of the year, pinpricks and irritation have resulted, and that splendid spirit of co-operation has been shattered. One of those who has helped very considerably in the building up of this cooperation told me that the administration has killed the goose which laid the golden egg, and that the appointment of the bonus work inspector has wrecked a system which had been found, in practice, to be the most effective and economic in the Union. I am going to give the Minister figures to prove this contention. The output of engines for January and February, 1928, was 27. The output of engines for January and February, 1929, was 30, and three of the 30 were newly erected engines, which involved a lot of work. The returns for January and February, 1930, that is after the appointment of the bonus inspector, shows an output of 22, that is eight less than the previous year. These are actual results. Other depôts are experiencing the same thing. Foremen all over the country say that the men have become soured and stubborn through these appointments, and those who know the effect of the appointments say that they are a waste of public money. In some instances these men have apparently reduced the time on big jobs, but we find that hundreds of minor jobs have come in, and in the end, they cost very much more than before the bonus work inspector was appointed. In regard to the staff generally, there is a good deal of well-founded discontent and dissatisfaction. In some grades the men are being bullied and badgered in a way which has never been done before. To show this is no idle statement I am going to quote from a letter I have received from an old railway employee of 35 years’ standing—

May that letter be laid on the Table?

What a question for the Minister to ask. I could well understand what would happen to this unfortunate man if his letter were made public property.

On a point of order, I want to know whether a member is entitled to quote a letter of this kind reflecting very seriously on responsible members of the staff. I claim that that letter should be placed upon the table.

The hon. member for Uitenhage, being a private member, is not compelled to lay the letter on the table. I think, however, that he should, in making anonymous quotations, employ good taste.

He says this does not conduce to discipline on the railways, and will, if persisted in, lead to personal violence. Judging also from reports, on all sides—promotions are nothing less than a scandal, and when you have a public journal with the reputation of the Salstaff Bulletin coming out in January of this year with an article entitled “Promotion Scandals,” it may be judged that there is something in these complaints. This article stated—

I wish to refer to a few points in connection with the future policy of the railways. The hon. the Minister said the other day—

All I can say is if that is the Minister’s policy, few will quarrel with it. But what I am concerned about is in regard to the steps being taken to reduce expenditure, when we see in the estimates laid before us that the expenditure for the coming year is expected to be £759,146 more than it was last year. In my opinion that is an extraordinary figure. Last year the railways were, it is recognized, facing a prosperous period. This year we are facing a big depression, and yet the railways are estimating for an increased expenditure of over £750,000. I also agree with the hon. member for Sea Point (Major G. B. van Zyl) that money spent on permanent ways is money well invested. In the Minister’s office, the general manager’s office, and in the accountant’s office, there is an increase provided for of over £20,000 more than last year. This is all the more remarkable when we consider that the figures for last year were £120,000 over the previous year. In regard to maintenance of rolling stock, on page nine we see the following remarks by the Minister at the beginning of the estimates which says—

But when we turn to the item, we find there is a decrease applied to steam locomotives of £18,474, electric locomotives of £2,767, and motor vehicles, £430. Maintenance of goods rolling stock shows a decrease in wages of £33,560, so according to the estimates placed before us, wages under this item were to be decreased by £55,231. In regard to the staff generally, we find on page 52 that sub-gangers, ganders and platelayers, the decrease in wages was £8,975, pumpmen, £4,800, artizans and apprentices £3,120, probationers £2,503, labourers £1,127, attendants, messengers and callboys £6,773. In the mechanical department we find that the estimates show a decrease of £41,629—the wages of artizans and apprentices. These figures are all the more significant when we know that the estimates last year provided for a reduction of £67,732 on this item. Under these circumstances, we have every right to ask the Minister whether he is reversing the policy of manufacturing in the shops everything that can be made there. In regard to natives and Indians the position is peculiar. The estimates reveal that it is the intention of the department to employ about 1,700 more natives and Indians this year than the previous year. On page 52 we see that under the transportation department the estimates for this year provide for 12,856 natives and Indians; last year they provided for 12,125, that is an increase this year of 731. On the question of the running staff we find that 63 more natives are to be employed this year than last year. On the traffic we see that 224 more natives and Indians are to be employed this year than last year, and on upkeep of harbours we find, for the coming year, it is estimated that we shall require 1,812 natives and Indians whilst last year only 1,107 were estimated for. There is one matter I want to refer to, and I hope the Minister, when he replies will be prepared to give us a full statement on the matter. That is in regard to the artizans and officials who were sent overseas to go through the British and continental workshops. The matter has caused a good deal of discontent all round, and I am sure that everybody is eagerly awaiting a statement from the Minister. I hope, when he replies, that he will give us that statement. Later on we shall have a further opportunity of discussing the policy of the railways, and I hope the Minister when he replies, will state definitely that there is to be no retrenchment, because I can assure him that there is a feeling abroad that very much more than the non-replacement of wastages is contemplated by his department. If we are in for a thin time I hope the Minister will consult all grades of the staff. If he does that I am sure they will be able to evolve a scheme which will considerably reduce his expenditure without impairing the efficiency of the service, or injuring any single man in the railway service.

It is regrettable that the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates), in an otherwise very fair speech raising a number of points of criticism, took the occasion of making certain vague charges against higher officials in the railway service. It is very easy to rise in this House and read a letter which contains certain serious charges, and then to shield the writer behind anonymity. The unfairness exists in this that, in the first place, there is no proof that what is written there is true. The hon. member received the letter from the person who makes the charge. He cannot give any proofs in support of it. He now expects us to accept the word of an unknown writer, but on the other hand the Minister and the officials have no opportunity of proving that it is not true. How can they make an enquiry? What use is it to bring it forward here in that way? The hon. member uses the privileges of this House to read out the charges while we do not know who wrote the letter, or whether there is the least grain of truth in it. It places the Minister and the officials in a difficult position, one in which they ought not to be put, because it is very easy to make unfair charges and to quote them here, and no one is able to say whether they are true or not. The hon. member for Uitenhage ought to have brought it to the Minister’s notice in another manner, if he attaches any importance to the charge. The high officials do not get the least opportunity of defending themselves. I, and doubtless many hon. members, deplore such action very much. The hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) drew a rather sombre picture the other night of his view as to the sad prospects of the railways, especially in the near future. What he said may be true. I do not want to go into the merits of it, but I want to say that it seems strange to me that the leader of the opposition in railway matters should adopt that attitude. I believe he thinks that he spoke the truth, and yet we find that, notwithstanding the sombre state of affairs even during the present session, hon. members of the Opposition have introduced the motion for the improvement of labour conditions on the railways. They pleaded for more privileges, higher wages, etc., and I recently showed that it would mean a sum of almost £1,500,000 a year to comply with all the desires. The hon. member for Sea Point did not identify himself with the wishes of hon. members on that side. I think the House expects him to give his friends there a little fatherly advice and inform them about his sombre expectations, so that they should not propose things which will cause much more expenditure, without increasing the revenue. I hope the hon. member will take a subsequent opportunity to disapprove of those motions by his colleagues. The hon. member for Sea Point also discussed the question of electrification, and the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) has already replied thereto. But I should like the House to be fair towards the present general manager of railways. It is a pity that we cannot yet discuss in the House the evidence given in select committee in connection with this matter, but it is true that the electrification costs us tremendous sums to-day, and if it were not for the electrification of the Natal lines, and the line to Simonstown, the railways would be in a much better position, and then we would not have had to expect a deficit this year, and the surplus in other years would have been much larger. We shall be able to go into the subject more fully later when the report of the select committee is before the House. For the sake of fairness, however, it must be pointed out that the present general manager of railways, from the very beginning opposed electrification, and always gave it as his opinion that the electrification of our railways would cost us very dear. A few years ago, when Mr. More was still assistant general manager in Natal, he gave evidence before a select committee against electrification, and warned us that the country would suffer considerable loss. He, therefore, has no blame in connection with these losses, and, in my opinion, the country ought to know that it never was the policy of the present general manager of railways. Hon. members have also spoken about the position in connection with road motor competition. I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the members of that committee who investigated the question of road motor competition. Their report, which has been laid on the table, is very valuable, and every member interested in railway matters, or in general questions of transport, ought to study it carefully. I cannot find sufficient words in which to praise the committee for their thorough and efficient enquiry, and for making such valuable recommendations. The country is very much indebted to them. I should like the Minister to say whether he is prepared to inform us how far he has got with Reference to legislation in this direction. I think that we all would like to know what is being done in connection with the recommendations in that report, and whether it is possible to introduce a Bill during the present session? Everyone reading the report will understand that the matter is urgent, and that legislation in connection with this matter should be passed as soon as possible. I do not think the public are doing their duty in this respect. Many people to-day support private lorries, and although it is sometimes beneficial, as has been said by members, that is not always the case. It has, e.g., happened that a farmer despatched his wool from the Free State by private lorry. The lorry with the wool fell into a river and the owner got no compensation, because the motor driver was not able to pay it. I mention this as an example of the serious position that exists. There are many cases where people use lorries instead of trains, e.g., a man trekked from Bloemfontein to Ladybrand; he loaded all his furniture on a private lorry. He told me that it was cheaper than sending it by rail, and further that it was not necessary to load and unload the furniture several times. So we can quote further cases, and it is consequently necessary for legislation to be introduced in the interests of the railways, and the general public. There will be another opportunity of debating railway matters more fully, and to-day I merely want to deal with a matter which I have already discussed in the House. It is in connection with the Railway Sick Fund. I want to prove that it is very necessary for a thorough enquiry to take place in connection with the Railway Sick Fund, because the state of affairs in connection with it is apparently not as good as it ought to be. If we compare the reports of that fund for the years 1927-’28, and 1928-’29, we see that the total expenditure in the latter year in connection with the Railway Sick Fund was £416,827. That means an increase of £9,503 over the previous year. In this connection I want to read a remark quoted from a circular sent out by the general manager by the Auditor-General in his report on page 44 of the Afrikaans issue—

It, therefore, appears that in some cases it is more advantageous to get sick leave, because then such a man gets more than when he is working, because over and above the payment from the sick fund he gets payment from other funds. Another point on which the Auditor-General comments is the supply of medicine. The matter is so serious that the general manager, himself, sent out a circular which the Auditor-General quotes as follows—

That is from the side of the railway staff, and it is clear that the general manager considers the matter so serious that he thought it necessary to send out a circular, but the abuse apparently does not only take place in the staff. Many statements are made in connection with railway medical officers. When quoting these statements here I cannot vouch for their truth, but I think when there are so many allegations it is necessary to institute an enquiry. One case was brought to my notice which I will mention. I asked no names, but it was a case where a doctor was called in to a confinement. The railway man called in the railway medical officer, but he did not come, and the midwife did all the work. The doctor, however, later demanded the fee, and thus represented that he was present. He came when everything was over, but he pocketed the fee. Some time ago I put a question to the Minister in connection with another case. I enquired about the salaries and other payments which had been paid to railway doctors in Bloemfontein during the past year. The Minister replied that £2,605 had been paid in salaries, £151 in consultation fees, £328 for assistants’ fees, and £43 for surgical treatment. I do not want to make any accusation against anybody, but it is said that it is only too easy to call in an extra doctor, and that for that reason the sum of £479 was paid for consultation and assistants’ fees over and above the fixed salaries. We find, however, that for surgical services only £43 was brought up during the year. The question is why was it so little? The reason simply is that a large number of the railway staff when they, them-selves, or members of their families, require an operation choose their own doctor for some reason or another, but will not employ the railway medical officer. I have already, on a former occasion, pointed out that that is an undesirable state of affairs. It is generally admitted, and I know it from my own experience, that the railway men undergo treatment themselves, and so do the members of their families by the railway doctor, but as soon as an operation is needed they go to another doctor probably because it is often a matter of life and death. That is the reason why only £43 has been brought up for surgical work. In the circumstances I want to ask the Minister if it is not necessary to see to it that surgical work is also given to other doctors. When I suggest this I am not speaking in the interests of the doctors, but of the staff. A number of surgeons can be asked if they are prepared to operate at the same fees as the railway doctors. Then allow the doctors who are prepared to do so to be put on a panel so that the railway staff can choose from among them. It is very hard for the railway men when their wives or children need an operation, and they cannot choose what doctor shall perform it unless they, themselves, pay for it, although the sick fund exists to pay the expense. I want to ask the Minister to seriously consider this matter, because it is one on which all railway men I have met feel very strongly. Another matter I want to refer to is that in Bloemfontein one of the railway doctors is financially interested in a private hospital. Quite a number of the railway staff go to his hospital. I asked the Minister whether the whole railway staff could be treated at a fixed tariff in a national hospital. The answer was in the affirmative, but that 145 members of the staff had gone into private hospitals last year. The reason given was that the other hospital had not sufficient accommodation. I have been told that that is a statement which cannot be fully accepted. I want to ask the Minister whether it is desirable for the staff to go to a hospital in which a railway doctor has financial interest, and whether this may not lead to abuse. The Minister told me some time ago that he intended to employ a number of young educated university men, young fellows who had taken their B.A. or B.Sc. degree, and to train them as experts in one or other of the departments of the railway service. As for me, and I think most members will agree with me, I welcome that scheme of training young university men, because in the past very few university men got appointments on the railways, chiefly because there was not much chance for them if they had to start at the bottom. I should now like the Minister to tell me whether those persons have been a success, because if they were a success, we shall all be very glad about it. Those young people may be of great service to our railway if the Minister’s experiment is a success.

I hope the Minister will bear in mind that when he deprived himself of the pleasure of making a general statement of the policy of the department over which he presides, he also deprived us of information for which we are thirsting, and of an opportunity of giving him assistance and support in various directions. I hope he will regard anything we may say as springing from our desire to assist him, and I hope he will receive all the observations that we make on this side of the House as a contribution to that end. It is particularly our desire to be of assistance to him under present circumstances. We are threatened with depression. Our farming industry is in a very bad way, and we have heard only yesterday from representatives of industry that they too are threatened with a repercussion of the bad times. Therefore, it behoves us to go into the administration of our departments, and particularly of the Department of Railways, to see whether we are really getting the best possible results. We are often met when we urge that industry would be assisted by a readjustment of railway rates with the statement that there is no money. We are also met with the same reply when we urge that the conditions of service should be improved, that wages should be raised, and that promotions should be dealt with in a sympathetic manner. The answer is that financial considerations will not permit. I cannot help thinking that this answer is largely occasioned by the raids which are made upon the railway treasury chest by the fierce and avaricious colleagues of the Minister. The Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Mines and Industries, the Minister of Labour, and, above all, the Minister of Finance, are all pulling at the Railway Administration to see how much they can get out of it for their special departments. We want to help the Minister to stand up against some of these raids, and he may be assured that in this tug-of-war we have got our arms around his waist, and will enable him to resist being pulled out of position by them. I have been trying to digest that all-important document, the auditor-general’s report, and I want to take out a few instances there given to illustrate my point. First I come to the question of sleepers. I do not know whether it is generally recognized in South Africa that we are using some of the magnificent old yellow-wood forests for the purpose of converting them into railway sleepers. These forests are magnificent in themselves. Do they give us good sleepers? We know quite well that they do not. This matter has been adumbrated again and again, and a resolution was taken by a railway committee some time ago to the effect that the cutting down of these magnificent trees and using them up for the purpose of making sleepers should cease. The Minister knows quite well that the yellow-wood is not suitable for sleepers. The jarrah-wood is better, and a steel sleeper is better still. Your yellow-wood sleeper will last only half the time the steel sleeper will last, and it costs approximately double the amount. Why is this going on? I cannot help thinking that it is not entirely with the good will of the Minister that this wasteful procedure is going on. I cannot help thinking that one of his colleagues is having a dip at the Railway Administration treasury chest, and trying to use the Railway Department for the purpose of ministering to the wants of his department. I suggest that I can see, I won’t call it the cloven hoof, at any rate, I can detect unmistakeable marks of the spoor, not of the Minister of himself, but of some other Minister who has come to his department and said: “Now the railways must help me to absorb something or other which affects my department and the railways will stand the cost.” The railways are standing the cost. It is well known that it is uneconomic and expensive, and, at the same time, we are destroying these irreplacaoble yellow-wood forests to the detriment of the country. I think the Minister should give us a statement upon it in order that we may know exactly what his policy is. The use of these sleepers has been dealt with in the following way. A committee was appointed consisting of representatives of the Administration and of the Forest Department, and they resolved to recommend that the use of yellow-wood for sleepers be restricted, as far as possible. I believe there has been a reduction in the use of these sleepers, but why continue it at all? Will the Minister tell us what this compelling reason is? I shall be very surprised indeed if he is able to tell us that it is a railway consideration which drives him still to use the yellow-wood for that purpose. I hope the Minister will be able to give us a reassuring statement upon this matter. The next point I take is the question of the grain elevators. The grain elevators are showing a loss, and have always shown a loss, and the aggregate loss since 1924 is £233,834. I want to know why it is that these grain elevators are being run at that very substantial loss. It looks to me as though there was a raid somewhere or other upon the Railway Administration. It seems to me it cannot be a railway consideration, or one which really appeals to the Minister himself that this important department is showing a very considerable loss. I cannot help thinking again that there is something else than a railway motive which is at the back of this loss. Will the Minister tell us what his policy is, why there has been this loss, what hope there is for the future, and if there is no hope for the future, that the loss will be turned into a profit, or, at any rate, wiped out, then will he tell us the compelling railway interest which leads him to carry on in this way? That is another instance. I pass to the question of the use of electricity for traction on railways. This matter was dealt with by the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). I join with him in hoping that the Minister will make as complete a statement on this matter as he can. It is one which gives us very grave concern indeed. When we have a figure like this, given in the auditor-general’s report again that, prior to electrification, steam working on the Simonstown line resulted in a loss which jumped to £200,000 per annum. The figure shows that there is something very much amiss. I know it is an isolated instance, and that accounting has to be dealt with thoroughly in detail. But there seems to be a complete breach between the Electricity Supply Commission and the Railway Administration. The Electricity Supply Commission was brought into existence to supply electricity for public and utility purposes, and a monopoly was given in certain areas; the monopoly to be controlled by the Electricity Board. This has been done, but one of the largest consumers has grave reason to complain of one of these monopolists—the Electricity Supply Commission—which has been granted licences in various parts. I do not know which is wrong—the Electricity Supply Commission or the Railway Administration. We only know that the result on the electrified lines is very disastrous. What is the position; what is the Minister proposing to do? I do not know that a reference to the Electricity Board meets the case. As the hon. member for Sea Point has said, a reference to this board is pending, but has the board any machinery to deal with the matter? It seems to me to involve highly technical considerations, which I am certainly not competent to deal with, and I doubt whether there are many members of this House who are competent to deal with them; but a reference to the Electricity Board does not seem to be hopeful. The board consists of a mining engineer, a lawyer—a very good contribution— and others, but why a board so composed should be called in for the purpose of deciding between very technical and grave differences between the Electricity Supply Commission and the Railway Administration, I do not know. It does not seem to be hopeful. I gathered from the replies of the commission that though they may have spent more on capital than was anticipated, yet the rate for the supply is that which was anticipated and bargained for, and has not been exceeded; in which case, if that is correct, then I say the case of the Administration wants a good deal more consideration. Why are their calculations so much out? There must have been grievous miscalculation. It wants probing. I hope the Minister will probe it, and make the fullest possible statement on the matter. I hope the House will not be satisfied with anything less than a thorough investigation by technical experts. I understand the consulting engineers of the Railway Administration, and of the Electricity Supply Commission, happen to be one and the same firm. Have their services been called in; has the Minister taken steps in that direction? I should have thought a reference to the consulting engineers in this matter would have been one of the first and most promising things to be done. Here again, I say there is an instance where a very grave loss has been incurred by the department, and it seems to me a stop should be put to it, but I cannot see that practical steps have been taken either to end it or to find out why it ever occurred. There is another point, on the question of payment out of revenue for what is really capital expenditure. I hope the Minister will stand up against his colleagues over this— that the Railway Department should really get the full benefit of the revenue it earns. I think the House will agree; I am sure the Minister will agree that it would be better for the revenue to be applied for the purpose of reducing rates and giving better service rather than for writing off capital debt. I do not know any company which pays off capital out of its revenue. Replacement of wasting assets is another thing. By way of illustration, I take a figure from the auditor-general’s report—the general renewals fund—created for the purpose of replacing capital assets as and when wasted; a thoroughly sound policy. What has been done? We find in the period of 16 years new rolling stock has been met from the renewals fund to the extent of £14,500,000; whereas during the same period rolling stock actually drawn from the service was only £1,800,000. It seems to me, as a layman, that the proper way to arrive at the result is simply to subtract one figure from the other.

What about the depreciation taking place all the time ?

That is perfectly legitimate; I quite agree. But the first step is to do a simple arithmetical sum by way of subtraction and find what is left. You find there that a sum of £12,500,000 more during this period under review has been spent on buying fresh material than actually has been withdrawn. That amounts to something like £700,000 per annum. The Minister interjected, and I accept it as sound accounting practice, that you have to have an allowance for depreciation of your capital assets during the whole period. Ordinarily that will be shown. It is usually shown in the amount of capital assets that are actually withdrawn over a long period. That is a fair test, whether it is done properly and fairly or not. If you take it over a short period, then you will arrive at a fallacious result. But over a sufficiently long period I shall submit that the two figures should approximately coincide. If they do not coincide, then I say, in the absence of any other explanation, that you are really paying out of your revenue for the acquisition of fresh capital assets, which is a breach of the policy which I enunciated, and which I do not imagine the Minister will dissent from. If that be the true logical result, then I say it is bad policy for the railways, and we are penalizing again the present generation for the purpose of benefiting the coming generation, and we are doing bad business for ourselves in the meantime. You are crippling the country in its first efforts for the purpose of getting a large harvest in the years to come. I am sure the Minister will agree with that too. I think I see spoor of the Minister of Finance entering upon the scene. He wants to get as much as he possibly can out of the railway system to assist general revenue. I hope that the Minister will knock out the Minister of Finance in a real good round upon this matter. In this connection there is another item to be referred to, and one which gives an even more, startling result. It is the question of the actual valuation of the railways at the time of Union, a matter which was never adjusted, and has been adumbrated again and again by the Minister and his predecessors for that matter, but they have never dealt with the matter in a satisfactory way. There has never been any valuation of the capital which was actually expended and represented by assets at the time Union was entered into, the result being that the railways is charged for a capital of £86,000,000, while probably, according to calculation, not of one, but of several, people, not more than a sum of £70,000,000 or £73,000,000 was fairly represented. That has meant that, from that time up to the present, there has been a sum of something like £450,000 per annum swung upon the Railway Administration for the benefit of general trade. That is a sum which is worth chasing. I know that the Minister feels rich at times in his capacity as the presiding Minister over the railways and harbours, but let me remind him that this is a very large figure indeed. I do not know how many pencils and pots of gum and so on it will work out at if it were calculated by the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), but the figure is sufficiently large in itself. I appeal to the Minister to have this enquiry made, and to claim from his avaricious colleague, the Minister of Finance, the corresponding credit when that calculation is done. The Railway Administration right up and down is having expenses swung upon it, and that is why every effort that is made to stimulate trade and to reduce railway rates is always consistently baulked, and it is baulked by the methods I have indicated. The remedy is an examination, I submit, an enquiry on the lines I have indicated. There is another matter which I hope the Minister will deal with. I want him to tell us what his real policy is in regard to branch lines which do not pay. After great delay and some difficulty, we have got some figures in regard to this. They have been taken, to some extent, on calculations, but the figure given in the auditor-general’s report is a total loss of £589,437 on 61 lines enumerated here. That is a huge figure, and it is a loss, so far as I can see, that we are threatened with in perpetuity. Everything is being done in the way of upkeep and expenditure on rolling stock and wages upon these lines, with the stupefying result that this colossal loss is incurred every year. What is the Minister going to do about it? Is he going simply to sit still and do nothing? Is the influence of his other colleagues concerned in the existence of the branch lines to be dominant, or is the Minister going to have a real railway policy and deal with this matter in a radical manner? I shall not suggest, for I am not competent for the purpose of suggesting, what should be done, but we have the right to know what the Minister thinks should be done. We want a clear and definite statement as to what he proposes to do and whether he proposes to do away with the loss, and, if so, in what way, or if he proposes to mitigate it, in what way, or does he propose to let it mount up, or what the dominating circumstances of national policy are which would justify expenditure on this scale, and a denial, on the other hand, of the many outstanding claims for the betterment of our country in various directions. May I express the hope that the Minister will hear in mind the development of road transport? I am sure he will. I do not know to what extent the development of road transport is responsible for this loss on branch lines. It may be that it has a very material bearing upon it. If so, surely it is worthy of a special report which might be departmentally prepared and presented to the Minister to enable him to form an unbiassed opinion as to what is the right policy in regard to this matter. I hope again that this matter will not be—T was going to say slurred over— lost sight of, but that it will be fairly placed and a definite policy enunciated, so that if the lines are to be kept going at a loss we may fairly anticipate what the loss is, and know the reason why we have to face this annual loss. I have given this as an instance, as I have said. There are many more that I could detail, but I do not think it is necessary for the purpose of dealing with this measure now before the House. These are striking instances going to show the extent to which the railway chest is being raided and railway policy is not being followed in the administration of the railway system. That raises a question which goes very deeply into railway policy, and we are entitled to a very clear and definite statement before the House votes the globular figures asked for by the Minister.

I listened attentively to all the grievances of hon. members opposite, and I must say that up to the present I have found nothing in all the grievances which is of any importance to that section of the population which, at the moment, is suffering most, viz., the farmers. When the farmers do not flourish, other business men and the rest of the population do not flourish. Therefore, I feel strongly the time has come that the railway department, which belongs to the state, must also contribute its share to assist the people, and help them out of their troubles. I feel that very little is done by the Railway Department, although it is always very sympathetic; it looks, however, as if it remains at sympathy merely, and our people cannot live on that, In the first place, I feel that the time has come to reduce the rates, at any rate to so reduce them that the man who sends his property over the railway does not make a loss through having to pay the rates. I want particularly to draw attention to the road motor lorries of the department, and the charges that prevail. We have repeatedly heard that there is little chance of additional branch, lines being built, or, at any rate, that development will take place in the matter of the building of the railway lines. The Minister made this clear, and the chief reason of course is that the railways have to compete with the motor services. The competition is not only felt in our country, but throughout the world, and will be still more felt, and therefore the railway administration feels that it must be careful and not go too far in the building of railway lines. I realize that they must take account of that, and it is the more clear after one has read the report of the transport commission. I want to say they have produced a good report, but whether it, if carried out in all respects, will be for the benefit of all parts of the country, I am not quite so certain yet. They say, on page 58 paragraph 18 about road motor transport, that they recommend as a fixed policy that all forms of traffic should be considered before further expenses are incurred on the building of branch lines. The road motor vehicle must, according to them, continue as the pioneer means of transport, and the building of a branch line must only be decided on when it is found that nothing but a railway line can serve a district. Inasmuch then as the road motor lorries must serve as the pioneer, I want to appeal to the Minister to reduce the rates for the lorry services, and not only this, but to bring them down level with those of the railway. If he says that for the time being they must serve as substitutes for trains, the same must be charged as for trains. Why can it not be so? There is not the expense with the motor services that there is in building lines, and keeping them in order, and there is far less cost of maintenances of the roads. The local taxpayers, and to a certain extent the provincial administrations, see to the repairing of the roads. As far as I know they will not pay any licences either. The road motor services have, therefore, a great advantage over the trains so far as cost is concerned. Why then the high rates? Hon. members will possibly be surprised if I refer to the high rates. From Klaver to Doorn River a distance of 41 miles there is a regular service, and the rate is 3s. 4d.

Shame.

Yes, it is a shame, and it is folly of the Railway Department to fix the high rate. Their lorries run past the farms, and go empty to the stations, but they will not meet the farmers. They prefer to see the farmers give away their produce for nothing. The farmers in our district get 18s. or 19s. for a bag of wheat, and if they have to pay 3s. 4d. for transport there will only be about 14s. 6d. or 15s. left. Can the poor farmer exist on that? Is it not folly to charge such high rates ?

Who does it ?

The railways. The hon. member of course talks very lightly about these things. He represents mining magnates, and can therefore not feel in earnest about the public. There is another case. Take my own station; to carry a bag of wheat a distance of 75 miles to the station by motor lorry costs 3s. 10d., i.e., 1s. 11d. per 100 lbs. How can one live? I hope that the department will no longer oppose the will of the people, but will do something. I admit that in the case of the 41 miles it was reduced by 6d. after a fair enquiry, so that it is now still 2s. 6d. for the 41 miles. Is it not in the interests of the railways and the farmers that the lorries should not run empty. We do not demand that that shall be done when they are full, but when they come back empty. They can surely take the produce at 1s. 6d. rather than travel empty. Now the farmers get nothing for their produce, and the railways get nothing either; hence my earnest appeal for the reduction of the rates, because the farmers and the railways will benefit. It costs a 1d. a mile to carry livestock. Therefore, to send a lamb from Sutherland to Matjesfontein, 75 miles, costs 5s. 6d., which is actually more than what the farmer gets for his lamb; there is something radically wrong.

Who then sends sheep in the railway lorries ?

It is the same member who interrupted me last time. I know that the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé) is the hero that brought down the Smuts Government and we honour him as such, but he must not talk about things he is ignorant of. I am not pleading here luxuriously, but the people are having a hard time and there is not enough sympathy. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) spoke of the young South Africans that the Minister had taken into the service. It is a very good thing, but I feel that the general manager is very unsympathetic to the Afrikaans-speaking members of the service. Before he was appointed as general manager he was very sympathetic towards them, but now that he occupies a high position he turns his back on the Afrikaans-speaking people, and I hope the Minister will see that more sympathy is shown towards the Dutch-speaking section of the population. I am speaking for them because when applications are sent in they always receive the reply that there are no vacancies. They get no appointments. I attribute this entirely to the administration being unsympathetic towards the Dutch-speaking people. I do not accuse the Minister. I do not think he knows about it. Another matter I feel strongly about is the costs that people have been put to in connection with the transport of stock from the drought-stricken districts. I know the Minister is sympathetically inclined towards these people, but I am certain that all the cases do not come under his notice. I want to ask the department to treat these people fairly, and not to compel them at this juncture to pay back money. I know of a few cases where the Railway Department have pressed and compelled them, and the people practically had to go to other creditors with the result that the other creditors said that they would no longer allow the Railway Department to get paid first. In one or two cases within my knowledge, people went insolvent in this way. It is said that the Railway Department has not yet summoned the people. I want to point out that the people on the countryside are simple but yet very honest. I rejoice at it. When they are asked to pay their debts they try to do so, and when they receive a letter threatening proceedings they treat it very seriously, and would rather sell everything to pay the debt rather than remain in default. I know that time is given, but the officials of the Minister behind his back write one letter after the other to compel the people to pay. They cannot possibly pay now. We are thankful for what the Government has done, but now that the people are recovering a bit there is no market for their produce and if they are compelled to pay they will be ruined. They will become poor whites, and that must be avoided. The Minister always treats me very sympathetically, but I must say that I am not asking for sympathy for myself; I am asking it for those people. They must be met, and the Railway Department must start by reducing the rates for the carriage of goods to the station. I hope the Minister in his reply will say that something is being done to reduce the rates of the motor lorries, and that something will be done for the people I am pleading for. The position is much more serious than many members know, possibly. That is the reason why I am appealing particularly earnestly to the Minister.

I think the hon. the Minister would have saved a good deal of time if, instead of waiting for questions to be put to him, he had given us a definite statement with regard to his department. Then, perhaps, he might have avoided the exhibition we had as between him and the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates). I was particularly glad that the hon. member for Uitenhage did not allow himself to be suppressed by the Minister, because as I understand the position, letters addressed to the Minister have to be put on the table of the House, but not letters addressed to a private member. We have to find out what is wrong with the department, and as members of this House, we have to welcome any information so long as we are satisfied that that information is reliable. Unless we utilize such information we have no means of putting to the Minister defects in the department. I was rather surprised at the attitude which the Minister took up. After all, the Minister will admit that during the period when he used to launch his very eloquent attacks on, Mr. Jagger, he did not avoid using letters from persons in the railway service who had grievances. I think one would not be very unkind if one said that the hon. the Minister built up his reputation on letters from the railway service. Having said this, I want to congratulate the Minister and the department on certain work which is being done. I want to touch, with a great deal of pleasure, on the development which is going on in connection with the road motor service. There has been an increase in the mileage since March, 1925, from something like 101 miles to 2,604 in October, 1929. When I was a member of the commission appointed to deal with unemployment some years ago, one of the principal complaints brought before that commission by struggling farmers, was that their energy was being wasted because they had no means of getting their produce to market, and this road motor transport that is being developed by the administration is doing a great deal in that direction, not only helping the railway generally by acting as feeders to the railway, but helping the small farmers to place their produce on the market. I want to put another matter to the Minister, and that is the placing of orders for certain rolling stock in Germany as opposed to placing them in Great Britain. I understood from the Minister recently in connection with some of these locomotives, that there was a question of delay, and also a question of the price quoted by the German manufacturers as compared with that quoted by the British manufacturers. I can understand a considerable difference in the price when one takes into consideration the low wages and the long hours obtaining in Germany. There is also the fact that Germany is in the unfortunate position of having to recapture the trade it has lost, and it understands that a large number of people are obsessed by the idea of cheapness, and that a cheap article will make a very much greater appeal than an efficient article, and that if it is to recapture the trade it has lost, it must manufacture cheap articles. What I would like to know from the Minister is whether he and his department were actuated by the speed of delivery—in which case I put the question, surely the administration should be so organized as to know its requirements in advance—or if it was a question of cheapness which actuated them in placing the order with a German manufacturer instead of a British firm. Did they take into consideration what would be the relative cost of repairs from time to time—and the general efficiency. I am told that some of these engines go off the line, and nearly knock railway stations over. It seems to me the points to be considered are, efficiency, length of life, and difference in the cost of repairs; unless these are taken into consideration the mere question of price is not a sufficient criterion, and certainly would not justify purchasing from a firm employing cheap labour in preference to one producing under incomparably better labour conditions. I hope the Minister will give us some information as to the considerations which led him to a decision in this matter. Then I come to the question raised in the last few months as to the cost of electricity to the railways. In connection with the disputes between the general manager of railways and the electricity supply commission, it has been suggested that the railways would get their current more cheaply by running their own power station. Does the Minister take that view? While I was occupied with municipal affairs in Johannesburg from my own knowledge gained there, it would seem that whatever may be the position, it would be a profound mistake to multiply power stations. If the railway built their own power station it would only mean that the electricity supply commission’s station would sell less power and have a double amount of overhead because as a rule the less current generated the higher the cost of production. I would ask that the Minister will state his views regarding the putting up of our own power staion. I look at it in the light of criticism which has been made that it is a matter for enquiry as to how the commission is doing its work, and whether it is efficiently organized. It may even be desirable to have men with a certain amount of business acumen in control of affairs, instead of being run by technical men. In the general manager’s criticisms he deals with the question of how cost of current might be reduced, and he suggests it might be reduced by a general overhaul of the whole organization, and by reducing the charges in connection with interest, renewals, redemption, and various other directions. It might be possible so to reduce the cost of generating that the current might be supplied more cheaply, and I think investigation might be particularly-directed to that aspect. My hon. friend the member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) reminds me of the fact that the mines on the Rand payless than five-eighths of a penny per unit while the railways are paying one penny farthing per unit. I submit that the whole matter is one for very careful consideration and is not a question of opening up additional power stations. This is a point which applies as far as the whole Railway Administration is concerned. People are told they cannot have lower rates and wages cannot be increased because the cost of operations are high. An investigation might be held as to the reducing of overhead charges, building up of reserves and various other means by which it might be found the administration has more resources available than are at present indicated. If some such investigation is held it might be found that there is no reason for the present conditions of low wages and the “speeding up” system to which the hon. member for Uitenhage has referred. I want to protest against this “speeding up” policy, which is a bad thing for the service, for the employees and for the country. On the one hand figures have been given by the Minister showing very heavy reductions in wages in almost every department—yet as regards the amount expended in connection with the general manager’s department, accountant’s department and staff generally, there has been an increase of £150,000 over the last year. Now you have to compare these two things, the increase on the one hand and a reduction on the other. The reduction of the items mentioned by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) showing a severe reduction in wages laid down in the present Estimates, can only be brought about by one of two facts. It can be brought about as a result of the policy of retrenchment which is being instituted by the administration. In that connection, may I say that recently a statement appeared in the Rand Daily Mail to the effect that the Railway Administration has embarked upon a policy of retrenchment. That statement was seriously complained of and repudiated. If this reduction is not due to retrenchment, it must be due to something else. Whilst the wastage is not being filled up in the service, those who remain in the service are made to do work which otherwise they would have many others to help them to do. That is a serious position. It cannot lead to efficiency, because if you are going to have large numbers of foremen hanging about the works, watching the men, and if you are going to have bonus inspectors to come along and say, “If you can do your work more rapidly, or more quickly than the man next to you, you are likely to get a bonus.” It will not lead to efficiency, but to a slipshod class of work, to inefficiency and to discontent in the service. I remember, and I think the Minister of Railways and Harbours will corroborate what I say, that in the days when he was the principal spokesman and the principal critic of Mr. Jagger’s railway policy, that he very strenuously objected to anything in the nature of this sort of thing. I remember that Opposition always took up that line, and I think rightly so. They very strenuously objected to anything that might be regarded as undue speeding-up.

No.

Oh, yes. We fought strenuously against the piece-work system. In those days, I admit, that anything which was done under a system of bonuses, or speeding-up, or of watching people to see that they did their job properly, was called by a much uglier name than it is called to day. It was said that the administration were embarking upon a policy of espionage, or a policy of sweating. To-day, one would not suggest to the hon. Minister that he was embarking upon a policy of espionage or sweating. No, to-day that comes under the euphemistic term of “efficiency.” The Minister is kind-hearted and generous, and always ready to be influenced by his officials, so, obviously, there can be no question of sweating. It is going into a policy which has very little to distinguish it from a policy of espionage and sweating which existed in Mr. Jagger’s administration of the railways in regard to the men on the railways. I put this to the Minister, that if you have people working at a low wage, if you have two men standing alongside each other and one is paid at one rate of wage, and the other is paid at another rate of wage, do you mean to tell me you would get greater efficiency because you have people standing behind those men, paid to get the most out of them? I say you will not get better service under those conditions. What will happen is that the moment the foreman’s back is turned, the men will naturally lapse back to the old position. They have no interest in their work. You give them no interest to be efficient. You are not making them contented and you are not giving them a sense of responsibility. You are inculcating into them a servile spirit, a spirit of dishonesty, that unless they do their job whilst they are being watched, they might lose their job. The moment the foreman goes away, the men take things easy. I have been told that the introduction of this new system of efficiency, not of espionage, of having a lot of foremen and bonus inspectors is costing the country about £80,000. I have been given that figure and the hon. Minister will be able to correct it, if it is wrong, and give us a more reliable figure. I submit to the Minister that he will be doing very much better by improving the lot of the people who are working, by improving their conditions, by improving their contentment and by considering whether, by giving them an additional share of responsibility, he would not be getting better service out of them than he is getting at the present time. We are living in an age where there is no reason for extremes, but there were two extremes of policy. There was the extreme policy which sought to place responsibility on the worker, and excluded those who were directing the industry. On the other hand, there was the extreme policy which said to the worker, “No, you have nothing to do with the matter. You have to do your job as cheaply as possible and, as far as you are concerned, you have had no say in the administration and nothing to do with the question of whether the service is being run efficiently or otherwise.” The labour movement everywhere has gone away from that policy I have referred to. What I say I think will be corroborated. They will be content if they get some reasonable share of “say” in the working of their particular jobs, so that they can also tender some advice and if something is going wrong, they would have some opportunity also of saying that, in their opinion, it is going wrong for this or that reason, and not for something that the management may say and which may be entirely wrong. I will tell the Minister this, that the greatest industrialists to-day are the people who are concerning themselves with reorganizing industry, and they are coming to the position that I am advocating. I am referring to a report which was recently issued in England by a committee, where they are advocating that, in the interests of co-operation between labour and capital and efficiency, in industry, committees should be appointed on which both sides will have some representation, so that the men themselves will be able to take some intelligent interest in the work they are doing and thereby you will get much greater efficiency. It seems to me that the Minister has gone to the opposite extreme in saying to the men “You have nothing to do with the matter. If you do not do your work, we shall appoint bonus inspectors and officials to see that you are doing your job, and if your do not do your job, out you go.” I say to the Minister that no distinction should be made in regard to any employee. I do not care whether he is an English-speaking or an Afrikaans-speaking employee. If any employee requires an inspector to see that he does his job, that employee is not worth keeping. He should be got rid of. If he is worth keeping, you should encourage him to do his work decently and efficiently without having spies round him, and the policy which the Minister is pursuing is a policy he criticized in Mr. Jagger’s time. It is a policy which is creating a tremendous amount of discontent in the railway service of South Africa to-day. I venture to say, without any hesitation, that the Minister, perhaps without the capacity of Mr. Jagger, is going to land the Nationalist Party Government in the same mess in which Mr. Jagger landed the South African party.

Before dealing with questions of general policy, I desire to express agreement with some of the views enunciated by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates). I have received a copy of the Salstaff journal containing the following paragraph—

I have written testimony from respectable railway employees that that quotation represents the opinion of the railwaymen as a whole. I wish to support what the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) said with regard to the withholding of information about the branch railway lines. I want to assure the Minister that, in meeting the present outlook and the probable difficulties he may have in the near future, he will receive the cordial support of hon. members on this side of the House. We regret, however, that economy is not taking place in the service. The House will agree with the Minister in the manner in which he proposes to avoid retrenchment of the staff by adopting the cautious policy of not filling up wastage—a line followed by the best business men in the country. The outlook in regard to reduction of rates does not seem to be improved. There was a general hope that there would be a reduction in rates, but we do not seem to be nearer that happy day than we were two or three years ago. I should like to know what policy is followed in fixing passenger rates. Is there a mileage scale? There is an old feeling with railway managers that traffic should be charged what it can bear, but I hope that idea has disappeared altogether, at any rate, so far as passenger fares are concerned. I find that there are different mileage rates for different districts. The distance from Cape Town to Simon’s Town is 20 miles, and the return fare is 2s. 6d. Pretoria is 48 miles from Johannesburg, and the return is 10s., but on that basis the return fare to Simon’s Town should be 5s. What is the reason for this differentiation? Then there is a great difference in the comfort and service of different trains. The train de luxe between Johannesburg and Cape Town is an excellent one. Compare that with the service from Port Elizabeth to Johannesburg. There is, indeed, the greatest possible disinclination to travel by the latter, owing to the discomfort passengers have to endure. The distance from Port Elizabeth to Johannesburg is 740 miles, but the journey takes longer than the 1,000 miles between Johannesburg and Cape Town. It has been suggested to me that the bad service on the Johannesburg-Port Elizabeth line has diverted tourist traffic from the Transvaal to other parts of the Union. The matter is at least worth enquiring into, and I leave it in the Minister’s hands with the greatest possible confidence. There is another matter which I think is not only of interest to railway users, but to the country, and that is the enormous amount of land held by the Railway Administration. If the Minister will look around he will see that much of that land can be sold or got rid of. One of the best instances is the railway yards abutting on Adderley Street. When I was a member of the Railways and Harbours Committee a year ago, with the Minister, it was said the land could not be sold as plans had been drawn up for a great railway hotel to be built there. It is really pitiful for a beautiful city such as Cape Town, to have a railway yard in its principal street, carrying coal dust and other rubbish. Cape Town is crying out for commercial expansion, to judge from its general appearance, and why not set back the railway yard so that the exit will not come out on the main street? The frontage is worth probably half a million of money. Why should the railway department lock up this ground, why should it not be sold, and why should it stop the progress of this great city? If you were paying what is known as the single tax on that ground, the department, at to-day’s values, could not possibly keep it without building on it. Here, at the very gateway of this city, are these shanties. There is no reason why this position should exist to-day, and the plans were held back because there was to be a large railway hotel, which I do not think the country wants. I think the Minister should be very considerate regarding these claims which are being put forward to-day. He has enormous power; he is the most powerful man in South Africa. He can tax a whole province and relieve another province, tax a district and leave another; he has the railway users in the hollow of his hand.

I am sure the Minister must welcome the criticisms in this debate, because they are constructive. There is no doubt the country is experiencing an economic depression, and it is experienced in other countries, but I think it is a passing phase. It is quite serious enough to call for economies in some of the Government spending departments, such as the railways—economy without destroying efficiency. In this respect I am very concerned as regards the loss we are incurring on the Cape Town —Simonstown line, for which there are two reasons. It amounts to £250,000 per annum. One of the reasons is the competition of private buses between Wynberg and Cape Town. The country cannot stand a loss on a line like that, which is a vested interest, and has to be protected. We have pulled up the line between Cape Town and Sea Point, but this is different, and this line is of such importance that such a thing cannot be entertained. If private competition in the way of buses is causing this loss, it is up to the Minister to see that that state of things is altered. Will he tell this House what his position is in that respect? The second cause for that loss is the excessive cost of electric current. It is really unthinkable that from the Witbank power station the mines are supplied at ⅝d. per unit, whereas in the Cape and Natal our railways have to pay 1¼d. per unit, to a semi-State department that has expended £8,000,000, and is one of those departments on which the searchlight of the Auditor-General is not flashed. Yet to-day the railways throughout South Africa are suffering to the extent of very nearly half a million through this excessive current cost. You have only to take your workshops at Salt River, and you find they cost £7,000 more for current than when the city council supplied the current. I hope the Minister will make it plain what he is going to do in this respect. If legislation is required let him say so. He is the custodian of the railway, he is the head of the railway, and he is responsible to this House, and I hope we shall have a clear and definite reply from him. I want to fall in line with the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) when he condemns the use of yellow-wood sleepers. I know that this Government did not institute the use of yellow-wood sleepers, it was done by the previous Government, but it is a dead loss to the railways to use these sleepers, and it is a wicked shame to use this valuable wood for this purpose. Yellow-wood can be used for furniture and tables, and I protest against this valuable wood being wasted. The Minister knows this. His technical advisers assure him that the life of a yellow-wood sleeper is only half that of the jarrah. For inside work such as furniture, etc., it is difficult to get a more suitable timber. The fiat for economy has gone forth, and I have in my hand the report of the Auditor-General. We find on page 104 a homily upon the saving of lead pencils and pots of gloy, etc. I ask the Minister to turn to page 94, where he will find under paragraph 6 these words—

How can the Minister defend that? They print a homily upon economy, but surely it is the Ministers’s duty to tell the general manager that example is better than precept. The heads of the railways, who are in receipt of high salaries, should set an example. I can visualize how a humble stationmaster would fare if he showed an extra fiver on the cost of the removal of his furniture. I have before me a letter from the Kroonstad chamber of commerce with regard to the bumper maize crop, and they mention a figure of 20,000,000 bags as being available for export during the coming season. I am not so optimistic. I spoke upon the maize export recently, and I must say that I think that our export will be in the vicinity of 15,000,000 bags. We have had a lot of experience in regard to maize export, and we have found the weak spots. We are two weeks nearer by sea than our competitor the Argentine to the European markets. We should take advantage of that. Our best months for the European markets are July, August, September, October and November. The European markets purchase their requirements as early as possible for the season. I want to point out the weakness of the farmer in this respect. He is anxious to harvest his maize as quickly as possible in order to convert it into cash. That is where he makes a huge blunder. When maize is harvested too early moisture remains in it longer than he thinks. The Minister should advise the farmers to leave their maize unharvested as long as possible, because we have had experience that where maize is harvested too early and sent down for shipment after a price being agreed to on rail when it arrives at the ports the moisture is too great for it to be shipped, and the farmer has to take 2s. a bag less because the maize has got to be dried. This could be obviated. After a circular has been issued advising farmers to leave their maize unharvested as long as possible, in the grain-growing districts there should be a fair number of maize testing plants. They are inexpensive, and any stationmaster can use them. This plant is portable, and any clerk with a standard 6 education can do the reckoning. Before any maize is railed from the Transvaal, Free State or Natal, it should be tested at the sending station, and the moisture content will be revealed at once; and all annoyance, loss and delay would be obviated. The farmer is quite willing to pay for the cost of 1s. a test. Now here is another point—a very weak link in regard to our export of maize. After it is reaped and delivered at stations, the farmer orders trucks. He may live 15 or 20 miles away from his siding and is told that the trucks will be there on a given day. He goes there, is disappointed, and has to go away without loading the truck. And that is not all. The time he gives to loading that maize is the ploughing time, the planting time. Why should not the railways enlist the service of more civilized labourers who will travel on the trains and do the loading after the maize has been tested. Charging the farmer the cost of loading which will be very small. It will cost the farmer less than if he had to travel to the siding with his natives to find no truck there, Best of all, he will be on his farm, ploughing, keeping up the continuity of output. I hope the Minister will give that point serious consideration, and I hope the men he employs will be paid not less than 10s. a day, the maize-growers will not object to pay a loading charge. Each train would have its crew of loaders and tested before loading this would save the farmer being mulcted 2s. a bag because his maize is not dry enough for export at the ports. We hear the Argentine crop is not going to be so good this season and we must take advantage of our being nearer the market. Now, in regard to derailments, I asked the Minister the number of derailments which had occurred on the Cape-Natal line for 1929. His answer was 67. There were various reasons given for the derailments of which a large number were indefinite. These derailments are due to the speeding up on the railways and the excessive hours which the men are working. Most of the accidents occur on goods trains. The overtime during 1929 to daily-paid staff was £531,000. In 1928, it was £49,000. I called for one return of a branch line. If any Free State member cares to call for a return for, say, Harrismith to Bethlehem, he will get a similar proportionate number in answer. You may ask what has that to do with overtime. A good deal. It is not only the crew of the train derailed which is accruing overtime, but all the others which are waiting for the road to be cleared, bearing in mind our lines are single lines. It is impossible to say how many trains are held up when a derailment occurs. There may be a dozen or more. I have a letter from an experienced driver who has become grey in the service of the Department, regarding the excessive hours worked on passenger trains in the Transvaal. This is what he says: On the number 14 up, Johannesburg to Christiana. 239 miles, this man assumed duty at 5.50 p.m., and ceased work at 5.44 a.m. He was eleven hours 55 minutes on duty. On the number 12 up and number 7 down train, Johannesburg to Klerksdorp, on a journey of 234 miles, he assumed duty at 7.50 p.m. and went off duty at 8.37 a.m., a period of 12 hours and 47 minutes. This is the effect it has on them. He says—

There is no excuse for this. There are plenty of men; plenty of locomotives in Johannesburg; these are all important passenger trains. Why do away with the eight hour schedule which averages 130 miles. The Minister must take a humane view and give relief to these men in an 8-hour day to the running staff, and each day stand by itself. The feeling on the railways to-day with the running staff is one of deep discontent. It would surprise hon. members if they were to call for figures of derailments in their own districts. There is another point in regard to defective engines. Re my question about driver Herbert. When a defective engine is taken from the shops and an experienced driver complains of it, I consider serious notice should be taken of his complaint. This man was told by the loco-foreman that if he complained again about an engine of that nature, he would be sent home. When I put the question to the House the Minister said that this man disassociated himself with the question. Am I correct in understanding the Minister to say that ?

Yes.

Very well, then. I will lay this upon the Table. This is what driver Herbert said in a letter—

Was it ?

Yes, it was. The letter goes on—

Well, if the Minister wants this placed on the Table he can have it. I want to know how does this letter square with his statement that driver Herbert dissociated himself with my question ?

What is the date?

I called out the date, it is 5.10.28, and the Minister can have the letter, if he wishes it. Why should the travelling public be subject to a risk of this nature? Supposing the boiler burst on a passenger train. The position that would result would be too awful to contemplate. Here is an experienced driver who says, “Goodness knows, the engines are in a very bad state.” This is a matter which wants looking into, and when the Minister replies, I expect him to assure this House that in the interests of the travelling public and in the safety of the travelling public, this state of affairs shall not continue.

When railway matters come up, I am sure that the Minister will be willing to be patient and give every member, whether on this side of the House or on the other, adequate opportunity of representing to the best of his ability any question that he wishes to bring forward. I say this, because one has noticed on a previous occasion when railway matters were under discussion in this House, that the hon. the Minister seemed to resent criticism of his department and the administration, and seemed to take it as a reflection upon himself personally when hon. members got up and attempted to criticize various aspects of his work. Now, everyone knows in this House that under the Railway Administration there are thousands of men fulfilling various posts, some of a very arduous and responsible nature, and others perhaps of a much less responsible nature; but in each and every one of those posts you have different types of men, some who have been in the service for many years, some who have come out to this country 20 or 30 years ago and have grown up in the service, and others, again, who have been drafted into the service in recent times. It is only natural, when you have a heterogenous mixture of that sort, that you are bound to have amongst that body of persons grievances, from time to time. Many of those grievances are probably trifling. Many of them may be without any substance whatever, but some of them are undoubtedly of considerable importance, and those are well-deserving of the consideration of the Minister and of the consideration of this House. But I put it to the Minister, that when an hon. member gets up in this House, and puts forward to the best of his ability an alleged grievance in regard to a particular railway employee or group of employees, the Minister should not take it as a personal reflection upon himself, or treat it as an abuse of the privileges of the House or as a mere irresponsible waste of time Conduct of that kind will not inspire confidence in the thousands of railwaymen employed in this country. The Minister couples that attitude with occasional cheap gibes at a particular member. On a previous occasion the Minister saw fit to indulge in these tactics when I was attempting to put forward certain matters which I had been asked to do on behalf of a large body of men. The Minister told me I was very young and irresponsible and had come from the soap box of Salt River to talk nonsense. I admit I am very inexperienced in these matters—

The hon. member must not refer to previous debates.

I certainly hope that the Minister will give me credit for attempting to put forward the views of my constituents and of a large body of railway men. The Minister’s cheap gibes do not add to the dignity of the Minister or to the prestige of the House.

I must again remind the hon. member that he must not refer to previous debates.

I bow to your ruling, sir, and will merely express the hope that the Minister will realize that I am here to do my duty to people outside the House. The question of retrenchment has been raised, and the Minister has specifically told the House that it is not the intention of the Administration to go in for any retrenchment whatsoever. He gave the House a definite assurance that there would be no retrenchment, but there is a very strong feeling that retrenchment is going on. I have a letter from the secretary of the Artisans’ Association of Salt River stating that, contrary to the remarks passed in the House regarding no retrenchment, several artisans of Salt River, some with six years’ service, had been retrenched. One can recognize, if certain men are employed in a casual capacity on contract work, that the Administration is entitled to dispense with their services when the new work is completed. But this is the charge I bring against the Administration—information has been given to me that quite a considerable number of men with varying years of service, who have been employed on new works and have been contributing to the superannuation fund, have had their services terminated. I can quote two specific instances now. One case is that of a carpenter who had been continuously employed since September, 1926, prior to which date he was on the New Cape Central Railways. He was employed at the Cape Town docks and elsewhere. I have a letter dated the 21st of February, or only two weeks ago, in which he was informed that in terms of his contract, his services were dispensed with. That man has been continuously in the service since 1926, and he was a contributor to the superannuation fund.

That was in terms of the contract, the hon. member knows that. He is a temporary man.

My contention is that although these men are temporary, there is an element of permanence in their employment, because they contribute to the superannuation fund. Why is it suddenly found necessary to dispense with his services in 1930? And this curious coincidence occurs, that all these services should be terminated just about this time. One could quite have understood the position if at one time during the year a man’s services were dispensed with and at another time another’s were dispensed with but here you have a large number of temporary men who have their services dispensed with almost at the same time, which obviously gives rise to the impression, rightly or wrongly, that it is the policy of the Administration to cut down the number of its servants, and to retrench. There is another case of a man who joined two and a half years ago as a rivetter, and is also on the temporary staff. He started at Cape Town, was transferred to Bloemfontein, and on the 30th of January of this year his services were terminated. In this case the Administration did not even see fit to give him written notice, but he was given verbal notice over the telephone. What I specifically ask the Minister is how many men on temporary staff, employed on new works or otherwise, have been told that their services would be dispensed with, since the beginning of the year, and how many were there during the previous four months? It may well be that the Minister may be able to reassure the House and the railway service that it is not his intention to indulge in a policy of retrenchment by a round-about means. But certainly that is the idea which is at present prevalent amongst a large number of railwaymen—that the Minister will contend in this House that he is not committed to retrenchment, but is gradually trying to get rid of men on the temporary staff. It would be interesting, and I should certainly be grateful, if the Minister will give us the figures, and some idea of the length of service of the men who have recently had their services dispensed with. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) has rasied the question of the nomination of railway men to go overseas on the Workshops Investigation Committee, and in supporting him, I would ask the Minister to give as full and complete an account as he can of what occurred. Here again the action of the Administration has caused discontent among the men. I have a press report before me which I will read for what it is worth, and I ask the Minister for enlightenment upon it. It deals with this question of dissatisfaction which has arisen because, apparently, the Administration has overriden the decision of the men vitally concerned. The report goes on to say that the cause for the dissatisfaction is, that after the employees nominated men representing the various branches not one of the men nominated was chosen. And the report goes on to say that the Minister of Railways and Harbours told a deputation that the men had merely been asked for recommendations and not nominations, but correspondence showed that the men were definitely asked to nominate representatives. Bilingualism has been advanced as a possible explanation, but it is pointed out, on the other hand, that all the men on the committee are not bilingual. If the committee is allowed to proceed, I can see trouble when they return. The men will have no confidence in them. I have no personal knowledge of what actuated the Administration, but, on the face of it, it would seem that the principle of interference adopted by the Administration is wrong. The Minister first said, in effect, to the men, “We are sending over a committee, nominate your representatives.” Then he turns round and says, “I will not send your representatives, I will send my own.” Not only the railway employees, but this House is entitled to an explanation from the Minister. I know that within the last few days a resolution was passed at Salt River protesting against the choice made by the Boilermakers’ Society being over-riden. Another point upon which there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction is the method that has been adopted in recent months by the Administration in considering grievances of railway employees, personal grievances, and also the manner in which certain alleged offences by employees have been investigated. There have been a number of dismissals of employees of late. In many of these cases it would appear that the employees have not been on the fixed etablishment, but have been engaged in terms of a certain contract, and when it has been decided to terminate their services, a very bald and brief statement is received informing the recipient that he has to go. It is perfectly true that legally the Administration is entitled to terminate the services of an employee if the terms of the contract allow of such termination. From the legal standpoint we cannot criticize the Minister. But it has been found, in certain cases, that employees with as long as five years’ service, have suddenly received a letter to this effect. If the Minister wishes to see a contented staff he must surely recognize the fundamental principle that, when a charge of misconduct is made against an employee, he should have an opportunity to hear the evidence supporting the charge made and have an enquiry. Instead of supporting this principle the Minister is getting round it by means of a letter purporting to terminate the contract. There have been cases where grave injustice has been done; and certainly this procedure opens the door to serious injustice. I want to give one very glaring instance. On the 27th of November, 1929, a certain Mrs. Wynne, who was a waitress at De Aar, received the following letter—

Then follow certain details, not relevant to the present discussion. Then it would appear Mrs. Wynne wrote to the local manager of the catering department, asking the reason for her dismissal. She received this reply—

Now here is a case of this lady, a waitress at De Aar, who, so far as she is concerned, is told to go for no apparent reason whatever.

She knew the reason very well, and I am prepared to give the House the reason.

I shall be very glad to hear it. I have here certain other letters dealing with this matter which I shall give to the House. I shall, however, be glad to hear what explanation the Minister has to offer. The first point I want to make is that here was a definite application by this waitress asking for the reason for her dismissal. The Minister says it was in deference to her feelings that she was not told the reason. It is the first time I have heard that the Administration has had such consideration for the susceptibilities of their employees that they will not tell an individual employee what is the reason for his or her dismissal. It is an extraordinary thing that, if the Administration had any charge against this woman, she should not have been told of it. The Minister lays bare the weakness of the Administration’s attitude by what he has just said. If the Railway Administration had a charge to lay against this woman, why was she not given the reason for her dismissal, and why was she dismissed without a word telling her what the charge was? As an elementary principle of justice, she should have been told why she had to go, and should have had an opportunity of meeting the charge. She was a woman who had rendered very valuable service to the Administration. She had to go, and the Minister says now that there are good reasons for it. But why, I repeat, were those reasons not given to her? Well, this was the letter she received at the time. The Administration seems to have continued to cherish a very nice sense of Mrs. Wynne’s susceptibilities in this matter, because, despite further letters, it maintained its attitude of secrecy. On the 5th December, 1929, she wrote this latter—

She got this letter in reply—

It seems that the catering manager was unable to carry the thing any further. But why was he unable to give any reason? Why was she not told the reason? She was told that the catering manager was unable to give her any further information as to why she had been dismissed. She then apparently asked whether she could have the right of appeal, and she eventually got a letter dated the 10th December, 1929, from the general manager. He says—

hon. members will notice that the element of sympathy keeps pace with the rise in the scale. The letters goes on—

In other words, the general manager could do nothing further. After that, she made an application to the appeal board to exercise the right of appeal. In reply she received a letter from the secretary of the Appeal Board, which says—

That letter was, legally, quite in order. My only observation on it is that the secretary of the Appeal Board, unlike other officers of the Administration, did not add an expression of his V deepest sympathy.”

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and. resumed at 8.5 p.m.