introduced by Mr. Struben and Mr. Nel, made and subscribed to the oath and took his seat.

gave notice of motion for to-morrow that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means on taxation proposals (customs duties).

I understood the Minister of Finance was going to be good enough to read us a translation of his original statement, but this deals with sugar, and I thought he dealt with wheat.

As far as the sugar proposals are concerned, if I read the statement I am sure it would be quite unintelligible to hon. members, and they will get an appreciation of the facts only if I explain them to them. Hon. members will not be any the wiser now.

as chairman, brought up the third report of the committee on Standing Rules and Orders, as follows—

Unless notice of objection given on or before Friday, 21st March, report to be considered as adopted.

Perhaps members wish to know what is to be done regarding the Easter holidays. I wish, therefore, to say that it has been agreed to that I shall move that the House adjourn on Wednesday 16th April at 6 p.m. and resume on 28th April at 2.15 p.m.

When I moved the second reading of this Bill I informed the House that the Budget would be introduced on Wednesday next, and that I therefore did not intend to give the House a financial statement. The Bill merely intended to provide for the usual vote on account and Parliament to be asked to sanction supplies for a period of three months. My hon. friend the member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) in opening the debate, accepted that position, and he informed the House that he also did not intend to discuss the financial position, but he then proceeded, as he was entitled to do, to bring before the House a certain specific matter of administration which he considered of importance. I think nobody has any fault to find with the position which the hon. member took up. I think that a motion of this kind (the introduction of a Part Appropriation Bill), is intended to give hon. members an opportunity, if they have important grievances against the Government, of ventilating those grievances, and if they are so advised, to refuse supply until those grievances are satisfied. Nobody could have any objection to that procedure, but I do not think it was the intention that we should seize on an opportunity of this kind to have a budget debate where every possible thing is discussed, and where hon. members, or a large number of them, claim the right to speak. I do not think that was what was intended to take place on such a motion as this but, of course, hon. members are quite within their rights to turn this motion into an ordinary budget debate. One thing is quite clear, that the shadows of the approaching provincial elections are upon us. [Interruption.] I have no doubt that most of the discussion which we have had here over a period of nearly two weeks will be repeated during the budget debate, and I therefore do not propose to traverse most of these matters which have been raised. I desire to confine myself only to a few matters which I consider of importance, and to which I desire to reply. One of the points raised in this debate, where hon. members opposite indicated that they are not in accord with the policy of the Government, is the question of the increasing expenditure in connection with the External Affairs Department. Hon. members pointed to the manner in which the expenditure of this department has been increased. The hon. the Prime Minister showed that a large portion of that expenditure was merely a transfer from other departments, the taking over of services previously performed by other departments. Certain appointments in connection with that department have also been criticized, but hon. members have not attempted to show that the salaries which are paid in connection with those appointments are in excess of what is ordinarily paid to persons in similar positions by other countries for the work which has to be performed. Those salaries have been fixed after the matter has been acrefully gone into by the Public Service Commission, and various scales have been laid down. Of course, the objection of the Opposition is a fundamental one. They do not agree with this policy. We know that many of the hon. members opposite have never had much sympathy with the action which has been taken by the Government in trying to obtain, for this country, an independent status.

We fought for it.

We still remember the attitude which was adopted in this country when the Prime Minister and I proceeded to the Imperial Conference, and when the Prime Minister indicated the attitude he attended to adopt in London. He pointed out that here, in this country, we had been wrangling for years over the position occupied by South Africa. We pointed out how it was poisoning the public life of this country, how a large section of the people were not satisfied with the subordinate position some people claimed for this country, and how we said we would never have peace unless that position was settled without any doubt. We know what the result of those discussions has been; how it has cleared the air, and created a better relationship between the various sections of this country; but we cannot disguise the fact that a very large number of the inhabitants of this country did not like that authoritative and emphatic declaration of South Africa’s position in the world. Unfortunately, a large section of our people still to-day do not like that position. They are prepared to admit in theory that that should be so, but they still oppose every practical step to give expression to that enhanced status, that independent status which we, as Nationalists, claim for this country, and which we have always desired. That is the secret of this opposition, and that is the underlying reason for the kind of speech to which we listened the other day from the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz). No wonder that it caused not only disappointment but indignation on this side of the House. We Dutch-speaking South Africans cannot understand the mentality of people who are prepared to, shall I say, degrade the position of their own country by a speech such as that to which we have listened here, by speaking of our representatives abroad, who will uphold that position, as “flunkeys.” Let us realize, and let the country realize, that here we have a matter where we, on this side of the House and the Opposition, at least, some of them, and a number of their supporters in the country, do not see eye to eye. Hon. members may ask derisively: “What do you get for this expenditure? Can you give us an exact calculation of the benefit it is bringing to the country?” Here, on this side of the House, we say it is a fundamental question of principle and of policy with the Nationalist party, and we are quite prepared to face that issue and to abide by the verdict of the country, as a whole, in regard to that question. Let us realize that here we do not agree with hon. members. We are of opinion that that expenditure, although we cannot tell you exactly in pounds, shillings and pence how it benefits this country, is in accordance with our national status, and that we, like every other self-respecting country, should be represented in this way in the other countries where we have sent our representatives. The hon. member says we are spending lavishly. I shall not have much difficulty in convincing the hon. member that our expenditure at the present moment is very modest. I shall certainly have to increase that expenditure. There are many countries where our representatives do not enjoy the privileges which those of other countries enjoy, and I am afraid if the country desires to carry out that representation adequately we shall have to increase the expenditure. Hon. members opposite have also dragged up this question of appointments in the public service. A number of individual cases have been debated from time to time in this House. Most of those appointments were made before the last general election, and people have had an opportunity of expressing themselves in regard to those appointments. I shall try to face some of these objections. It is a curious thing that hon. members, when they raise these questions, generally start with a bald statement: “Look at the appointments to the public service,” and they trot out a large number of appointments outside the public service. That is one of the methods adopted as a rule to which we can reasonably take exception, because it obscures the whole position. It is necessary to distinguish clearly between appointments to the public service, where a certain procedure has to be followed, and appointments made outside the public service. So far as appointments in the service are concerned, no change has been made in the procedure. These appointments are still made at the instance of the Public Service Commission. Of course, I know that hon. members do not like the personnel of that commission, but they will not dare to tell us what lies behind that objection to the personnel of the Public Service Commission.

These appointments are made on the recommendation of Ministers.

Well, I say here that the procedure in regard to recommendations of Ministers has not been altered from that of our predecessors. I know that is the procedure adopted; it is the practice of the head of the department who knows the qualifications of the various officials to put forward recommendations to the Public Service Commission. In some cases they are accepted; in others rejected. If the recommendations were rejected they would be brought to Parliament. That is the practice in all departments. Names of certain people have been mentioned in this matter. There is the case of Mr. Steyn and Mr. van Rensburg, but we had a complete explanation when the Minister of Justice pointed out that it has been an invariable practice in the past for these private secretaries to be given appointments in the public service; they are men of ability; I challenge anyone to question their ability. Then we have the classical example of the appointment of Mr. Strachan, and we hear such expressions as “jobs for pals” and “people who have fallen by the wayside.” My hon. friend the Minister of Labour pointed out that Mr. Strachan replaced a member of the South African party. The question under discussion is the “iniquitous practices” of this Government, but this was also the custom of our predecessors.

On the same qualifications ?

Yes, on the same qualifications. Well, unfortunately for my hon. friend, he is not to be the judge as to that for the present. Now we come to the appointments outside the service. Mr. Waterston has been mentioned. He was appointed in the same way as another defeated candidate was appointed under the South African party. You can only treat these matters on principle. Now we come to appointments outside the service. Here the principal cause of complaint is against the Minister of Agriculture. All those appointments have been criticized; my hon. friend has gone into each individual case. But the Minister of Agriculture has been merely carrying out the policy in force in the South African party. It will take a long time before we shall be able to catch up with the South African party in this respect. It will take a long time. I am afraid, whether the hon. member will admit it or not, that a good degree of racialism is still at the bottom of it.

That is not true.

So far as I am concerned, I desire to see equal justice for both sections of the community in regard to public service appointments. I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that, as far as officials are concerned who were in the Government service prior to the adoption of this principle of bilingualism, they should not be penalized in any way. I fully subscribe to that. If we are prepared to be sensible in regard to this matter, all our difficulties will be solved. That is not our difficulty. We had figures the other day in which it was shown that under this Government the leeway has been made up, and that the new appointments are now, more or less, on the fifty-fifty basis. It was not so always. I think hon. members will admit that, but we have made up a lot of leeway. I can foresee what is going to happen, and the time will come when you will have a larger number of Dutch-speaking new entrants in the service. Why is that? I shall give the reason why. The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) indicated that when he was criticizing the Government in regard to insisting upon bilingual appointments in the Agricultural Department. He said: ‘You will never succeed in making this country bilingual.” We have been told from time to time that our English-speaking friends have accepted that position, and that they are now becoming bilingual. I had hoped it was so, but when I heard the hon. member for Weenen make that explanation, I was very disappointed. I can see what will happen. What was the position in 1910-’12 when the controversy was raging, especially in the Orange Free State, in regard to the Education Act? The Prime Minister said that the education policy in this country was going to be compulsory bilingualism in our schools. When he said that, there was opposition taken up by hon. members opposite. The effect of what they said was: “We are not going to stand the ramming down our throats of compulsory bilingualism.” What did the Prime Minister say then? He said: “I think that that is the right policy, because if there are parents at present so foolish as not to realize that it is in the interests of their children, then it is the duty of the state to see that a policy shall not be adopted by the parents which will, in after life, handicap their children.” That was the underlying policy of the Prime Minister. But our friends said: “No cimpulsion in our schools.” I believe hon. members, especially our Natal friends, never thought that this was seriously meant. This talk about the necessity for bilingualism in the service was not thought to be seriously meant. It was all right in theory, but they thought it would never be brought into practice. They said: “We shall not have Dutch forced down the throats of our children.” I regret that we are now coming to the position where many of those children, through the foolish ideas of their parents, are suffering to-day. We are not getting the number of English-speaking South African children coming forward for the service.

Why?

Why?

They were trying to learn it.

I hope that they tried when they saw this Government was really in earnest.

You know they are trying.

I say again I should regret it if we have to adopt the policy in this country where preference is to be given to one side of our public service. I am merely pointing out the inevitable results of the policy which hon. members opposite, and some of our people, have adopted in the past in not taking this thing seriously, and in not doing their best to see that their children acquire a second language. Those children are suffering to-day, and they will suffer in the future. What is the position? I know that they are making desperate efforts now to improve the position, but since when?

Since 1910.

We have made tremendous progress, and this matter will solve itself, but it will not be solved by this suspicion or by continually bringing up cases such as we have heard in this House. We have been asked how many promotions have taken place, and what are the names of people promoted in the police. One hon. member read out a list in this House, and he was exhausting the House with the length of the list.

These questions do not only come from hon. members on this side of the House.

As a matter of fact, when my hon. friend got up to try and expose this thing because it was a question that we thought was the underlying motive of the principle, we thought it was only right and just to have the other side of the picture. Now we are asked the question: “How many public servants have left the service as a result of reorganization under this Government?” At once, suspicion. Horrid suspicion against the Government. Reorganization is a term which can hide many things. They said “reorganization? Let us have those names !” The hon. member himself must have known that under the previous Government, under this heading “reorganization,” numbers of officials have from time to time left the service. We shall have to continue it in the interests of the public. Do not ascribe the term “racialism” to the carrying out of the ordinary policy which has always been carried out. I hope hon. members will bear that in mind. I see the time coming when in the ordinary course, as the result of our English friends not having appreciated the necessity for, and not having accepted that principle, we shall find that we do not get entrants into the service of the same number of English-speaking people.

Natal boys have applied and have been refused.

Have they not to be Nationalists as well as bilingual ?

That is typical of hon. members opposite.

Did not the Minister say that the other night?

The Minister of Agriculture said that.

Only one important matter has been raised as far as the financial policy of the Government is concerned, and that is the raising of the last overseas loan. I told the House at the time that I was disappointed—that the subscription for the loan was not as I wished it to be, and was not supported to the extent I had hoped, and I added that I thought there could be no question as to the soundness of our finances or as to the credit of this country, or of the opinion which overseas investors held in regard to the financial policy followed by this Government. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) very fairly agreed with that, and I said I hoped I would be able to give the House some further information later on. What are the facts? I have had reports from our High Commissioner in London, who has seen Lord Glendyne, who has always been employed to raise our loans. On March 12th I received the following cablegram—

That is, apparently, the simple explanation of the matter. It appears that we rather squeezed our underwriters to too great an extent, and that the price was not attractive enough. The small investor was not able to take up the entire issue, and the big people held back because they thought they would be able to get the loan later on from the underwriters on better terms. What are the principal factors to be taken into consideration in inviting subscription to loans for this country? It has always been the practice to have these overseas loans underwritten, and it is the duty of the treasury to obtain the best possible terms—our main object being to secure the money at as cheap a rate and on as favourable terms as possible. Naturally, every country would, in addition, like to see the public subscribe readily for its loans. We were frankly told by our agents that they thought that £98 10s. was cutting it too fine, and that the loan would go only at £98. We took up the position, however, that they should take into consideration the strength of our financial position and our credit and the rate at which we had floated loans in the past, and we stood out for another ½ per cent. I am quite sure that if the loan had been readily taken up, the treasury would have been criticized for giving too generous terms to the underwriters. As it happened, we cut it rather fine, and the underwriters had to take up the major portion of the loan, but we saved the country £30,000. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) was quite right in saying that our credit had nothing to do with the matter, for, since the loan was issued, it has readily been taken up by the public. Today, I received a cablegram stating that the new loan was quoted in London at from ⅝to ¾ premium.

Above par?

No, above the issue price—the underwriters are now able to dispose of the loan at three-quarters per cent. premium. What do we hear from some hon. members opposite? They thought that party advantage was of greater importance than maintaining the credit of our country at a high level, and to gain some paltry party advantage they could not resist the temptation to drag in all sorts of things to explain the apparent failure of the loan. I think the remarks the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) made in this connection were certainly —

Below par.

I will not say that, but not calculated to serve the interests of this country. I have no hesitation in characterizing those remarks as mischievous. What did he tell us? To enhance the effect of his criticism, he told us that this was the second consecutive Union loan that had been a comparative failure. I do not know whether the hon. member knew the facts, or whether he intended to convey the impression that the other loan to which he referred was also an overseas loan. Anybody who did not know the position could only assume that the other loan was also an overseas one. The hon. member was wrong in several of his facts. He said that on a previous occasion when the Union Government went in for a £5,000,000 loan, the Public Debt Commissioners had to take up all but about £850,000 worth of it. As a matter of fact, that was a local loan issued at £94, and bearing interest at 4½ per cent.

It was a very ill-advised loan.

That issue was made deliberately with two objects. One was to provide an investment for the Public Debt Commissioners who had large funds in hand, and the other object—deliberately taken—was to test the market with a 4½ per cent. loan. Before that 5 per cent. was the general rate, and we tried to break away from the tradition of a 5 per cent. gilt-edged loan. Therefore we made these terms, which would have yielded to investors slightly under 5 per cent. We were not disappointed at all with the result. We know that at the best of times there is not very much money available in this country for this sort of business. We have got over £1,000,000 from the public, which is considered satisfactory. The hon. member also tells us he did not agree with the policy of making these loans available to the Public Debt Commissioners. What does he want us to do? This is the way in which investments are provided. The hon. member said we went to the market for £5,000,000. This was not so, as the amount was indefinite and was not fixed at all. Under legislation passed by this House, a loan can be kept open to provide the Public Debt Commissioners, from time to time, with investments; it has been kept open that way, and the figure has been increased. The hon. member’s speech was mischievous because he tried to introduce all sorts of things. He started by saying the credit of the country was good, and that the credit of the Government was bad. I do not quite appreciate the difference. I do know one thing—we have heard that story before, and in 1924 the people were told that if they returned another Government one of the dire results of that change would be that that Government would not be able to raise money overseas, and that capital would not come in. In five years’ time we have been able to strengthen the credit of this country overseas. Is there any reasonable man who is prepared to deny that? I am modest; I do not claim all that credit for myself and for the Government. Hon. members may say that the country has had a prosperous time, but I say, and it is not denied overseas, that the sound financial policy adopted has had some result. As the result of the adoption deliberately of a sound financial policy, we have increased confidence overseas and strengthened the credit of the country, by looking after debt redemption and by seeing that our budgets balance. What are the reasons advanced for saying that the credit of the Government is bad? There is the Quota Bill, and because the Government exercised its right to say who should come into the country—that, of course, was bad policy, and you see the result—financiers are not coming forward with loans. Then there was the German Treaty, and when this Government, in the exercise of its policy to obtain further markets for the products of this country adopted a certain policy, we were going to estrange the financiers overseas. Of course, the hon. member said, only countries who are able to behave themselves can obtain money overseas.

I used the words “behave themselves financially.”

The hon. member is welcome to that, and what does he mean by that? I said I thought it was a mischievous speech. The hon. member and a number of his friends use this sort of argument from time to time, because they think this Government is not following a policy based on sentiment, we should see that all our business, commercial and financial, should be placed in one channel, and we should carry out a policy which he thinks is one of co-operation within the empire. Let me tell him he is not going to advance the cause of co-operation within the empire by this argument. If it should be true that South Africa is to be penalized in the money market overseas because we have deliberately adopted a certain policy— I do not think it is; we have always been treated in the best possible manner in the London money market, and we have no cause to complain—it would show the danger of following a policy of deliberately tying ourselves to one market, and concentrating all our business in the one channel; that is the effect of his speech. The principal reason, according to the hon. member, was the iron and steel industry, and I suppose the idea is if we antagonize the steel magnates of the United Kingdom they will not lend us the money. Of course, the hon. member does not like this iron and steel business at all, and many of his friends do not. He was busy quoting certain figures to show that this thing could never possibly pay. I have not paid the hon. member the compliment of checking these figures for the simple reason that the desirability and payability of that scheme were thrashed out in the House, and how can you expect me, at this stage, to debate that issue? The hon. member complains that the public does not know where they are, and that they get no information. Let me say that this is not a State industry; it is a national industry, and I hope it will remain a national industry. It is for that reason (that it is a national industry) that the House does not get the information asked for. It is not a Government department, but let me point out that the House deliberately said that this should be a semi-independent concern where the Government’s only function as far as management goes should be the nominating of certain members to the board, and that for the rest the industry must be conducted on business principles without political interference. In the case of your Reserve Bank, your Elctricity Supply Commission, and your steel industry, all more or less on the same lines, I think the sound policy is that we should not thresh out the conduct of the board in this House, but I nevertheless think that Parliament should be entitled to reasonable information from time to time about these institutions. I am sorry to notice a tendency on the part of some people in this country to say why doesn’t the Government do this, and why doesn’t the Government do that; but here I think the sound policy is that Parliament should get reasonable information, and that the industry should be conducted on national lines. I think we can sufficiently secure that by the appointment from time to time of the members of the board.

When do we get some information ?

I think hon. members are rather impatient. They must know that a tremendous amount of preparatory work has to be done. There is not the least ground for anxiety that this industry is not going to be proceeded with. I make that definite statement. There need not be the least anxiety that some sort of sinister scheme is afoot, and that this industry will not be established at Pretoria in terms of the Act. It will be established there, and a good deal of prorgess has been made in connection with the work.

Public money?

The hon. member said something about an arrangement being entered into with the Union Steel Corporation. Let me tell the hon. member that there is no cause for alarm on that point. When we passed that Bill originally, we all realized in this House that through the establishment of our national scheme the scheme at Vereeniging could not be allowed to stand in the way of our national scheme. But we wished to see a reasonable arrangement between this industry and the existing works at Vereeniging. From time to time there have been discussions to ascertain in what manner the existing works at Vereeniging could be utilized for the manufacture of certain things which could not be undertaken at Pretoria. At one time they arrived at a stage where certain heads of agreement were drawn up. Since then, I understand, not much progress has been made. At present discussions are again proceeding with that end in view, but no definite progress has been made so far.

The information we have is not correct?

No, the discussions which are proceeding are on the lines I have mentioned, that is to see how far the existing scheme will fit in with the other. Opponents of the scheme have all along said that nothing will come of it because the Government is not going to get the money. I realized all along that our chance of getting money for this scheme has been seriously jeopardized by the attitude taken up by the Opposition. We have been told it would never pay. I have said from the start that the public will be given an opportunity to subscribe under the terms of the Act, and that if they do not subscribe the Treasury will find the money. I again say that the resources and the credit of the state will be placed at the disposal of the ocmpany to see that the industry is carried through. Let me say this, that, broadly, I can tell the House that Dr. van der Byl, who is the head of the scheme (who has given some proof of his ability to deal with a large undertaking) assured me a few days ago that the chances of that industry on subsequent investigation prove to be very much more favourable than we originally thought. He says it is based on this, that the industry will as intended only be able to supply a limited supply of the product used in this country.

Without protection?

I have said from the start that I think it will be the duty of the country to protect the industry against dumping, but that there will be no tariff protection. We have all the factors which are favourable to the success of such a scheme. I do not see, if a scheme such as this can be successful in other countries, why it should not be successful in South Africa. All sorts of difficulties are trotted out from time to time, but we are going to make the attempt, and I think the probabilities are that the scheme is going to be a success.

Would you invest your own money in it ?

I am sorry I am not in the fortunate position of some of my hon. friends opposite of having money to invest. If I had I should have faith in the undertaking. I am given to understand that some shrewd business men would now be prepared to come forward and support the scheme, provided the Government would be prepared to agree to certain terms. But then it would no longer be a national scheme. Just a few words in regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr), a very important matter. He made some important statements here in regard to the future of provincial councils. I have no doubt the hon. member thought that, incidentally it would be a good thing to extract something from me which might be of use to him in connection with the elections proceeding in the Transvaal. As far as the future of the provincial councils is concerned, that is a matter in regard to which the Government is not at this moment prepared to come forward with a cut and dried scheme. The hon. member quoted certain assurances given by the Prime Minister and myself to our friends in Natal. As a result of remarks made by the Minister of the Interior and myself, our friends thought that a sinister plot was being hatched to do away with provincial councils in Natal. They were assured they need not be alarmed. The question will have to be tackled in a way which will give the public of the country an opportunity to express their views in some way or other. We shall have to take the public into our confidence and thresh out the whole thing. The hon. member proceeded and pointed out that all these councils were getting into financial difficulties. Well, unfortunately that is so from the figures which have been furnished. All the councils with the exception of one, which is supposed to have been badly treated by this Government—the Cape provincial council—will be in a bad position. The hon. member proceeded to point out that one of the weak points of the existing system was the principle of double taxation which I conceded at Durban. He thought that was very unsound. The hon. member himself gave the reason for my agreement with that view when he told the House that even with the present resources assigned to the councils they have a very small taxable capacity; and that shows how difficult it is to avoid that double taxation. The point to which exception was taken is the personal tax. If the House will examine the position, they will see it would be impossible to balance these budgets unless you attach that source of taxation to the province. As a result of the arrangement at Durban, these councils have been able to carry on successfully for the first four or five years on the Government subsidy. They have very little financial responsibility. The time is only coming now when they will be tested. When some of these councils came to me during the last few months, to point out their difficult straits—I told them it would be impossible for them to expect the Government to come to their assistance at this stage and give them another dole which they could spend without any financial responsibility. I am afraid that if the councils cannot show by so arranging their services, or by raising revenue, that they are able to balance their budgets, the possibility of arriving at a settlement in any other way will not commend itself to the taxpayers of this country. They will have to set their own house in order in the best way they can.

Will you equalize the subsidy ?

We will deal with that question later on. I will only say that your provincial revenues from the central Government in the past have never been based on the principle of uniformity. All you can do is to ascertain the requirements of each province and deal with them suitably. Under that system, no injustice was done to any province. The Cape province is the only one which shows a satisfactory position, but there is no evidence that this province in the last four years has been able to show that result merely by starving the services entrusted to it. I want to make brief reference to another point. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) has raised during the debate, the question of my remarks last year just before the House adjourned, when I pointed out that the present Government has left in the hands of the taxpayer £6,000,000. Subsequently he asked me how I arrived at the amount. I gave him this information and pointed out that my figure was really conservative because in that figure was included the remission of certain provincial taxes which were in existence in 1924. The hon. member thinks I am not entitled to take credit for this remission on the grounds that the Union Government has passed legislation under which the provinces are now receiving certain revenues in respect of trade licences. He makes a comparison between that revenue and the revenues received by the provinces prior to 1924. My reply to that is this. I think I am fairly entitled to take up the position that I have taken up for this reason, that at Durban when we recast the financial relations between the Union and the provinces, we started by endeavouring to balance the budgets of those various provinces. We agreed to the basis of a subsidy, based on the number of children in schools, etc. We then worked out what that would give to the various provinces, and on the results we obtained in that Way, I then insisted that certain provincial taxes should go. I thought the provinces could afford it. I was making generous provision and I thought that certain provincial taxes should go in consideration of the subsidy. Amongst other taxes was the turnover tax in some of the provinces. I insisted that must go. Then, during the course of our further negotiations, the provinces said, “We are faced with this burning problem of the unequal basis of trading licences in all the provinces. We cannot agree. It is hampering trade, and it is in the interests of the country that these trading licences should be made uniform. We cannot agree to a basis without that uniformity. We can legislate, but it is difficult, and we ask you to take on that odious job and make these trading licences uniform.” I agreed to that. In carrying out that undertaking, one of the results was that in some provinces, of course, the licence fees were low, and in other provinces they had not licences to the same extent, and that some provinces had increased revenue in respect of trading licences. That was an incidental result. It had nothing to do with my statement. I say that in consideration of this increased subsidy “you must remit certain taxes which are at present in force,” and the other was merely incidental, and enabled some of these provinces to show these surpluses, which had been done in past years. They did not require the money to balance their budgets. I do not think that the hon. member can reasonably claim that from the figure I have given, should be deducted this increase. But even if that were conceded, the hon. member would see that the original amount I gave is substantially correct. He makes another point. He says, “You must deduct something for customs duties.” I cannot concede that in any circumstances. The hon. member bases that on a certain basis of calculation which, I submit, is altogether fallacious. He takes our importations and arrives at a certain over-all average rate of duty, and he finds out what duty was payable in certain years. You cannot claim that you have remitted taxation. That is a fallacious basis, and I will show you why. We have in the past, from time to time, made certain remissions of duty in regard to certain classes of articles. The estimate I gave to the House from time to time had been based on the actual importations in respect of these classes, and the duties which we were remitting had the result I have given to the House To show how fallacious the hon. member’s basis is, take motor-cars, motor spirits and luxuries. These bear a high rate of duty, and the importations have increased out of all proportion to the lower-rated articles. Take luxury items, the higher-rated items of importations have increased. While these increases have given a substantially increased amount in revenue, the hon. member cannot see that this is not increased taxation. In any case, I said in my statement that if these taxation laws had remained unamended, then increased collections would have resulted without increasing the rates of duty. The duties collected on motor-cars were less than £300,000 in 1923, but had risen to £830,000 in 1928 on motor-cars alone. The duties on motor spirit were £116,000 in 1923 and £540,000 in 1928. The duties on tyres and tubes were £48,000 and £364,000 in the respective periods. On the purely luxury classes, including jewellery and gramophones, it was £110,000 in 1923 and £374,000 in 1928. On those classes alone £1,500,000 was collected in 1928 in excess of 1923, and represent altogether one-fifth of our total customs revenue. You will see, although I have increased the revenue, it is not as a result of increased taxation. These increases have been in respect of these higher rates on purely luxury articles, whereas the revenue with regard to these other items has been reduced. Therefore, I do not think that the hon. member’s calculations are fair. The only proper method of calculation is to take the actual remissions on the amount of importations for a particular year, and that will stand unless these importations increase or decrease, in which case they will vary. But in most cases, there had been an increase rather than a decrease. I should like to say one word in regard to the question of housing. I do not want to discuss the merits of the scheme announced by the hon. the Minister of the Interior, but one point was raised by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). The hon. member for Newlands, of course, is against the whole principle of the sub-economic scheme. He was supported by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard). His objection on economic grounds is that it is a method of subsidizing employers who pay low wages. The crux of the position is that wages are too low, and that is the crux of the economic position. But by realizing that fact, we do not get rid of the problem. We all realize, unfortunately, that something must be done. It is not absolutely sound economics, but it is the best way of dealing with that phase of the present problem as it stands. The hon. member for Newlands said his objection was that we are now dealing with the uneconomic housing position at the expense of the other scheme which has been in operation all the time. That is not quite the position. What the hon. member forgets is that of the further million pounds made available, a large amount of that money has not been drawn, although most of it has been allocated. There is this important factor It is a revolving scheme. As the repayments come in, those amounts are again made available for further housing advances. This is in the nature of a further sum of £100,000 for this year, but, as years go on, it will increase considerably.

Does the million pounds remain fixed ?

As repayments come in, the amount will be available for further use. That does not apply to the £500,000. That is on a different basis. That will go back to the consolidated revenue fund for obvious reasons which we need not debate now. So far as the original scheme is concerned, the repayments made will again be available for further loans. That will remove to a considerable extent the objection of the hon. member for Newlands. I think the Minister of the Interior should be gratified at the favourable reception the scheme has received at the hands of the public generally, for no matter how we may look at it we must agree that something must be done.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

Clauses and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment; third reading to-morrow.

In view of the reply of the Minister of Finance, I do not propose to take up much of the Minister’s time for fear that he might consider any observations I might make, as not of sufficient importance to reply to, and suggest that a later occasion might be afforded of saying practically the self-same thing. The Minister should take notice of the dissatisfaction which is pervading the whole of his department. It has been emphasized in this House on more than one occasion, and particularly when the House debated the motion of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane). I said nothing on that occasion, but I ask the Minister if he is aware of the number of instances in which the wages paid to railwaymen differ considerably from the wages paid by outside employers under wage board awards. If it is fit and proper that in order to maintain a decent standard of wages, certain employers in outside industries should be forced to pay a minimum wage, then we can expect the Government to pay the same wage. But instead of that there are numbers of instances where the Government is not paying the same wage that was forced on outside manufacturers. Another cause of dissatisfaction is the fact that railwaymen are not sure of the man perhaps working on the next lathe to his. There has been created a feeling of suspicion, and espionage is dreaded. The Minister should do something about it. I do not think there are spies in the Railway Department, but the Minister should dispel what must be undermining the efficiency and loyalty which the railwaymen are expected to render to the department. With regard to the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North), and the Minister’s reply that he considered that the wages paid to his civilized labourers amounted to 9s. 1d. a day—

The hon. member must not refer to the previous debate.

I am referring to the Minister’s statement that these civilized labourers get 1s. 4d. a day in addition to their wages. How does the Minister make up that 1s. 4d.? I suggest that he does it because certain housing schemes—of which I approve—are not on an economic basis. I approve of the Minister supplying these houses, but when he estimates that these people receive value to the extent of 1s. 4d. a day in addition to their wages, then the wages themselves must be taken into consideration in estimating what the department loses in supplying houses at a non-economic rent, and we must also consider the position of the civilized labourers if they were all fortunate enough to be able to get a house instead of a house allowance. I understand some members of the catering staff have died as a consequence of malaria incurred as a result of working trains when transporting the British Association to Rhodesia and Beira. I understand the department ascribed the infection to their being on duty on these trains. I want to know whether the department has dealt sympathetically and generously with their dependents. How many members of the catering staff have been forced to terminate their services with the department on medical grounds? A man came into my chambers the other day who has been off sick for a few months, and did not succumb immediately to the effects of the malaria he had caught on that occasion. That man to-day is 100 per cent. disabled, he is a physical wreck, and his heart, his other organs and body are in such a condition that he cannot render service. While off sick he has had the usual sick pay allowance—not full pay. I do not know how many have had their services terminated from similar causes. In connection with a question I put on the paper some little time ago, I understand there is a scheme afoot in the Cape Town municipality to promote some sort of sewerage scheme which will be a development of the present one in Table Bay harbour. For the last eight years, to my knowledge, the presence of the sewerage scheme, which is pouring sewage into Table Bay, has been a menace to the amenities of Cape Town. Particularly at some state of the tides it is unhealthy and unhygienic, and it is a reflection on us in Cape Town that the present scheme is tolerated. Some time ago an action was instituted in the courts to interdict the Cape Town municipality from going on with the scheme. That was settled, but I understand it is proposed not only to go on with the present scheme but greatly to enlarge it. I understand that the Minister, in his capacity as Minister of Harbours, has considered this question, and one of his officers has been considering the possibility of such a scheme, but he should with all the power at his command oppose it—it is unhygienic. The Minister may have had an opportunity of going along the sea front, which is one of the most delightful drives in this area; children are brought out on to it, and by his policy of taking up the Sea Point railway, the Minister has greatly enhanced the amenities of that part of the town. I would strongly submit he should not allow that pollution of that part of Table Bay. I frankly confess the alternative schemes may involve a much larger expenditure, and we have to consider the possibility of the erection of sewerage stations which can cope with this refuse; even if it involves a much larger initial expenditure it is absolutely worth it. There have been continuous epidemics due to infection consequent on this nuisance, and this nuisance on the foreshore right in the heart of one of the most pleasant residential suburbs in Cape Town should not for one moment be tolerated. If the Minister was aware of the nature of this nuisance and could experience what was the usual lot of residents there, he would have no hesitation whatever in definitely forbidding the extension of such a scheme. It is no use suggesting that it is natural to throw lour sewerage into Table Bay, and that other centres must build sewerage stations. I suggest that the Minister should grant no exception to Cape Town nor to any other centre. In Durban, years ago, I experienced the same nuisance as in Cape Town, and there you have this nuisance alongside the quays. The hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson) tells me it is worse to-day than it has been in the past. I appeal to the Minister not to allow Cape Town to be worse in future in this regard than it is to-day. If he sees to it that this nuisance is dealt with, it will meet with the entire satisfaction of the ratepayers.

There is just one aspect of railway policy to which I should like to refer, and that is the question of the railway purchases of coal. In reply to the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Robinson), the Minister gave us some very interesting figures as to how he distributes his coal orders. He obtains 196,000 tons from the Transvaal per month, 145,000 from Witbank and 51,000 from Breyten, and he also told the hon. member that the calorific value of the Transvaal coal was on the average 12.42. I don’t know how the Administration arrives at the calorific value, but I presume that a qualified officer occasionally makes a test. I ask that deliberately because it does seem to me that the figure given as the calorific value of Breyten coal is high. I should be surprised to find any considerable quantity of Breyten coal averaging anything like the figure given. He also told the House that Natal only gets monthly orders to the extent of 49,000 tons, and that the calorific value of Natal coal is 13.74 as against 12.42 in the case of Transvaal coal. Natal gets a very much smaller share of the coal orders, and one might assume from these figures that there was a price difference in favour of the Transvaal, because only on the ground that more has to be paid for Natal coal could the Minister be justified in placing such a large proportion of his business with the Transvaal. But here the facts are interesting. The Minister pays for Witbank coal 5s. 8.9d. or, for the purposes of my remarks, 5s. 9d. per ton, and 5s. 2½d. for Breyten supplies. For the Natal coal he pays 5s. 1½d. Not only is Natal coal very much better coal, but it is very much cheaper. Still, Natal only gets 49,000 tons of the orders as against 196,000 tons given to the Transvaal. There may be some other reason which may influence the Administration, but I would like to point out to the Minister that this distribution at the expense of Natal is unfair to the Natal collieries. The Natal collieries supply a substantial part of their output to shipping. The Transvaal collieries, on the other hand, have a mining supply business, and the great difference between the two kinds of trade from the colliery point of view is that, whereas shipping business always varies, up and down every day of the week, mining trade is steady. The Natal collieries are very busy for two or three days, and the next two or three days they are very slack. That makes for uneconomic working. To such collieries a steady railway trade would be of inestimable value. I would like, apart from any political reason, to examine the economics of the question in some detail, because the figures, if you look at them very carefully, are even worse than they appear on the surface. The Minister is buying 196,000 tons of coal from the Transvaal, and he is paying 5s. 7d. per ton on the average, but in order to get the same heat value out of that coal that he could get out of Natal coal, he has got to buy 6s. 3d. worth of Transvaal coal. He has got to buy more of the Transvaal coal to get the same heat out of it that he would get out of Natal coal. On the other hand, he could buy coal from Natal at 5s. 1½d. per ton, so that the difference between 5s. 1½d. and 6s. 3d. per ton is the cost to the railways of buying coal from the Transvaal instead of from Natal. That 1s. 1¾d. per ton difference applies to 196,000 tons per month, which amounts to £11,187 per month, or £134,000 per annum; that is to say, if my reasoning is correct, a sum of £134,000 is being unnecessarily expended per annum. At 5 per cent, that would give us a capital investment of £2,680,000. I do not know whether the Minister will appreciate my point. He may possibly reply by assuring me that these technical matters are left to his technical officers, and that he has every confidence in them. In that connection, I would first of all like to say that whatever opinion he has of his technical officers it is certainly not higher than mine. I am an engineer myself, and can appreciate the efficiency of the technical officers of the Railway Administration as few others can, but I think that these technical officers should make it as clear as possible to laymen how they arrive at their conclusions. The Minister will probably ask me if I have ever heard of Van Reenens Pass. Whether I realize the cost of pulling coal over the “Berg.” If he does ask this, I will tell him he is introducing a new system of estimating charges charging by altitude instead of mileage. I will remind him that Van Reenens Pass is not mentioned when we raise the question of his “sea competitive” rates. The Minister may also raise the question of the extra haulage involved in taking Natal coal. Taking Witbank and Glencoe as a basis, there is only a slight difference in favour of Witbank; a difference of 20 miles. I understand the Administration in reckoning their coal rates for haulage, allows one-seventh of a penny per ton per mile. This makes a difference of less than 3d. per ton in haulage, but in this connection I must point out that every colliery must stand on its own merits. If I quoted Dundee, I could show a much more favourable figure. The next point the Minister may take up is probably this: Do I know anything about their locomotive boilers? Fortunately, I do. He may assert that Transvaal coal burns better than Natal coal under present conditions, but I must point out that locomotives can be made to burn any kind of fuel— wood, charcoal, good coal or bad—so that I cannot accept an excuse of that kind. I have no doubt any locomotive could be altered to deal with Natal coal. The last reason I can think of is: the Minister may say it suits him to take Transvaal coal because of the return cattle traffic. It is more economical for him to use the trucks both ways, but I would like to ask my farming friends whether they approve of putting cattle into trucks which have just been used for coal. I know that we, as coal merchants, object to coal being handled in cattle trucks. Any little saving which the Minister may make in this respect is probably more than balanced by the additional time taken up in loading and unloading trucks that are unsuitable for coal. If the Minister has never tried it, let him shovel coal out of trucks with a lot of transverse wooden bars which catch the spade at every point. The Victoria Falls power company and most of our leading commercial coal users buy coal on the basis of calorific value, and I think the Minister should take into consideration the question of buying coal, not because it is black, but having regard to the most economical way in which it can be used for railway purposes, I would like to point out that it costs as much to haul inferior coal from the Transvaal as superior coal from Natal.

I do not rise to criticize the Opposition, but merely to give my views about the railways. I would not do that except that there appears to be a misunderstanding. A report appeared in the Rand Daily Mail which wrongly states my view on the railways, and now I want to explain what my view is and always has been with regard to the railwaymen. From the first day it was my policy that railwaymen, who do continuous work and work from day to day, ought to have an 8-hour day, except on branch lines, where only two or three trains run a day, and where, therefore, it is an impossible matter, because we can understand that it will cause great expense to give those men an 8-hour working day. I am, however, firmly convinced that the man who works constantly day after day when he has worked eight hours a day has done as much as he can. It has been thrown at our heads that we promised the people an 8-hour day, but I always said: “As far as possible, as far as it can be applied.” We have now already partially applied it, and, as the Minister said last year, about 64 per cent. of the railway staff have the 8-hour day, and the rest are still working longer hours. Hon. members must not forget that the branch lines are included in this. My feeling has always been that where we can afford it the railwaymen ought to have the 8-hour day. They are only flesh and blood, and if we keep them at eight hours’ continuous work they have done their utmost. Then I come to another point, viz., the 96 hours in 14 days which they call the “pool” system. The whole railway service is opposed to it, and I have always said that I could not agree with that system. When a man is permanently employed, and if he has regular work, then the employer must see that he gets a full day’s work. I come from a district where there are many railwaymen, and those people really do not get their due. Men are booked off and the following day booked on again, and have possibly to work on that day 14 hours. He has to do hard work, and the following day he possibly only works for five or six hours and is then booked off. The hard work of the previous day is then used to make up the eight hours of the next day. I do not agree with this system. A railwayman’s work is very hard. We cannot all sit on an engine. He must use his head, and has the lives of a large number of people in his hands. I say it is not fair. A change must be made, so that the men get the wages they earn. Another point I am coming to is the white labour policy. It is in extraordinary circumstances that these people are employed, and so they have been forced to work there, but to come to the House and table an irresponsible and blind proposal without consulting the Minister is misleading. I maintain that the people were employed to assist them, and in the existing circumstances it was the best that could be done for them. When the previous Government was forced by necessity to employ the people for three or four shillings I do not blame them, and that Government did the best in the circumstances. They employed married men from six to nine shillings and unmarried men at five shillings. I, however, say that that is not a proper wage for a white man. Everyone will agree that a white man and his family cannot live on it and educate his children, but the scheme which the Minister has carried out is the best that could be done. They, at least, have a chance of getting on. As the Minister said, 9,000 of those people have been promoted and are to-day getting a wage they can live on. There are now about 10,000 workers left who work under this system, but those have also got an increase, viz., when they work for two years they get an increase of 6d. a day, and when they have worked three years they get 1s. more. I do not unnecessarily want to attack the other side, but when that side put a motion on the Order Paper, I asked the Minister what the financial position of the railways was, and he said that he was expecting a deficit this year, and added that if we agreed to the motion it would lead to more expenditure by a million and a half pounds. Now I ask every responsible man in the House whether he would agree to the Government at this critical time spending a million and a half pounds ?

I want to point out to the hon. member that there has already been a motion in connection with this before the House, viz., the one by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (Mr. Deane). The hon. member cannot debate it again.

I bow to your ruling, but I am not actually speaking on the motion. I only gave it as an instance. When such an irresponsible thing as this motion comes before the House I ask hon. members who have a feeling of responsibility whether they can vote for such a thing in the present circumstances? We have no right to do so, because we are here to do the best for our country and people. What is decided upon by us here must be practicable, but I am certainly in favour that a man should get as much for his work as he needs to live on, and to clothe and feed his wife and children, ad educate them as respectable white people. Here, however, we have the unfortunate position that we have not only to provide for those people who work on the railways, but also for thousands of others, e.g., those who have to live in sack pondokkies on the diamond fields, and have no bread to eat. Those people must also be assisted. A debate took place yesterday about people in dry areas, but if hon. members could see those people on the diamond fields their hearts would contract with sympathy. I do not wish to go into this any further, but I hope to return to it in the budget debate.

I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours firstly some of the reasons why, in my opinion, he finds himself in his present trouble; secondly I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice some of the grievances of the railwaymen; and in the third place some of the grievances of the general public. I have a deal of sympathy with the Minister of Railways and Harbours, as there is a world wide depression. On the one hand the Minister has to contend with motor competition, and in the near future the Minister will probably be troubled with air competition, and on the other hand he has just demands from the railwaymen and the general public, but to-day is not the most favourable time to consider these demands. The Minister has lost a golden opportunity, as he has had five excellent years, the revenue sometimes being £750,000 or £1,000,000 in excess of the expenditure, the latter increasing to about only £100,000. Compare this with our position in 1918. When we had the funds we paid the railwaymen, and they were satisfied.

The question of the pay of railwaymen has been disposed of by the House on a motion introduced by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane).

The present Government is able to pay the railwaymen better, but it refuses. I contend that the railwaymen and the public should receive more consideration.

I must again remind the hon. member that the House defeated a motion on this subject moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane).

We in the hinterland look on the railways as a taxing machine. The Minister will probably tell me that the railway traffic to the coast is as great as the traffic to the hinterland; that may be so, but the high rated traffic operates to the interior, while the low rated traffic operates to the coast. For instance, the cost of carrying sugar from Durban to Kimberley is 47d. per 100 lb., but when sugar is carried from Durban to Cape Town, a distance of 600 miles more, the rate is only 27½d. Machinery for the mines is carried at the rate of 109d. per 100 lb. With regard to coal, the rate from Witbank to Johannesburg, a distance of between 70 and 80 miles, is 85d. per ton, but from Witbank to Cape Town, a distance of about 1,000 miles, the rate is 240d. per ton. I contend that the railways to a great extent are a taxing machine on the people in the hinterland, who pay something like £2,500,000 a year in indirect taxation in the shape of excessive railway rates. Again, can the Minister truthfully say that his preferential rates are based upon equity and justice? Furthermore, the South-West African railways are sapping the strength of the Union railways, although the Minister may say that the South-West African railways are making a profit. Let the South-West African railways run upon their own wheels, and the Minister will have a different tale to tell this House. The cost of uneconomical labour is a burden on the railways to the extent of between £600,000 to £1,000,000 a year. I contend the general revenue should bear that burden. The railways in a certain European country have dismissed 60,000 men, but, notwithstanding that, the railways are better run than they were before. Let the Minister put his surplus men back on the land, and the railways would be run more efficiently. With regard to gratuitous services rendered by the railways, the Minister is carrying farmers’ stock at a loss in time of drought, 1.28d. per truck mile. I do not object to assisting the farmers, but why should the railways suffer the loss? There is another very important matter—the branch lines, of which there are some 70—10 show a profit, 32 pay working expenses, and 28 of them do not cover expenses. There are other matters involving very large sums of money; for instance, the railways still continue to pay interest on capital, although that capital was actually contributed from railway revenue. Certain railway revenues were given to the general fund by the four provinces at the time of Union, free of interest. Subsequently the railways received from the general fund I believe £13,000,000, upon which the railways are paying 3½ per cent. interest, and up to the present the railways have paid a sum of £437,000 interest upon their own money actually. This, in my opinion, is an unfair charge. There is a further amount of £417,000 owing by the general fund. The railways are paying more by 1s. 4d. per cent. on a capital of £86,000,000 than they really should. £86,000,000 represents the capital cost of the railways at the time of Union. The Government borrows money at £3 8s. 8d. per cent., and the railways are charged £3 10s. per cent. The difference is 1s. 4d. per cent., and this amount is increasing yearly. The cost of raising loans is naturally in favour of the railways, but the interest on the cost of raising loans is against the railways. The Minister should endeavour to get that £417,000 by some means or other from the central Government. There are other big amounts; for instance, contribution towards redemption of capital. The Minister pays a quarter of a million every year by way of redemption. We all know that the Railway Department should be run on business lines, and why should the Minister provide for redemption? I can understand his providing for renewals and depreciation. It will take the Minister something like 700 years to redeem his capital. These are some of the reasons why we find the Minister up against all these difficulties to-day, and if he did not have to pay all these amounts, and he should not, the railways would run more easily, and he could reduce rates by probably 10 per cent. all round. To-day he finds himself snowed up, and is unable to move in any direction. I now want to come to some of the grievances of railwaymen, of whom there are some 96,000; 46 per cent., or one in 200, are getting £600 per year or more. Indicating on the whole that railwaymen are not highly paid. On an English railway, for example, with an open mileage of less than one-tenth of that of the South African Railways, the salaries paid for senior positions a few years ago were as follows: Chief goods manager, £3,750; our man, £200. Chief accountant, £3,250; our man, £1,650. Chief mechanical engineer, £3,750; our man, £2,000. Chief civil engineer, £3,750; our man, £2,100. Survey and rating agent, £2,520; our man, £1,100. Take, for instance, the Canadian railways, where the general manager gets £15,000 a year to our £3,500; New South Wales, £5,000, with a route mileage of 5,940, and New Zealand £3,500, with a route mileage of 3,150 and employing a staff of 18,000. Our route mileage is 13,281, and staff 96,629. This is certainly an indication that our men are not too highly paid. With regard to our engine drivers, I believe the men on branch lines are getting the same rate of pay as those on the main lines, with the exception of the men who drive the Union Express. I contend that a main line driver, driving a heavier engine, and a train containing many more passengers, has a much greater responsibility than a man on the branch line. I would like the Minister to take into consideration increasing the pay of drivers on the main line. Motor drivers are getting 5s. 9d. for a “night out,’ while probationers receive only 1s. 6d. A temporary labourer gets 1s. 6d., but a casual labourer nothing for a “night out.’ I want the Minister to give these men more consideration. Then I hope the issue of uniforms will be brought up to date. We have a very fine railway system, and fine men running it, and the men are dissatisfied about the delay in the issue of their uniforms, and they have every right to be. With regard to the Railway Sick Fund, I think there is very great room for improvement. The men are dissatisfied. When a man’s wife or child become seriously ill he naturally goes to the very best doctor he can find, but if he goes to a man outside and not to the railway doctor, he has to pay the amount himself, and I know of one man who paid almost £100 in this way. The Minister knows the ins and outs of the whole question, and I hope he will give his serious consideration. With regard to Regulation 36, the Minister, since 1928, has deleted the small word “direct,” which has caused a lot of trouble and dissatisfaction amongst railwaymen. A man, for instance, takes his case before a board, is not satisfied with the decision, makes an appeal, and finds the papers are sent to an appeal board which merely reviews these papers. If he goes to a higher board, the papers are passed along, and these men find that the first decision is always the final decision. Their case is never reopened. The men want to be able to state their case anew. I shall be glad if the Minister will consider this matter with a view to removing this grievance. I know of instances where very small amounts have been misappropriated, a matter of shillings and pence, where man have been dismissed and heavily fined and where they can get no satisfaction on appeal. Yet there are men who have misappropriated one and two hundred poounds, and they are still on the railways. I want to know why some men who have misappropriated a few pence are fined and dismissed, while others who have misappropriated hundreds of pounds are still in the employment of the department. I now wish to draw the attention of the Minister to another matter. We have hundreds of coloured men on the railways, and they are good men. These men are very keen on promotion. The Government told us some years ago that the coloured men should have the benefit of their European blood, but there seems to have been a change of heart since then There are hundreds of coloured men who desire to become members of the fixed establishment, and it appears to be impossible for them to get on the fixed establishment. Let me quote an example. At De Aar there are two men with 26 years’ service. They are painters, and they have served an apprenticeship, a seven years’ apprenticeship. They have been well trained, and yet the Minister, while getting trained service from them, is paying them a labourer’s wage of 8s. a day. I would now like to refer to a farmer’s grievance against the railway administration. There are instances of farmers sending produce to market loose or in bags, such as beans and watermelons, pumpkins, etc., and these farmers find that only 75 per cent. of their consignments are delivered. The remainder have been damaged or pilfered, but the railway makes its charges on the whole consignment. I know of instances where public meetings of protest have been held, and I want the Minister to take this matter into very serious consideration. It is heartbreaking for the farmer to send a truck of produce or a truck of fruit, or whatever it may be, and only 75 per cent. of the goods are delivered, and the rail charges are on the full consignment. There is another point I wish to draw attention to, and that is the question of coloured people and Indians travelling on our railways. Years ago it was not a very big consideration, but to-day there are numbers of coloured people, Indians, who travel on our railways, not of the labouring type, but of the gentlemanly type. After all, there are in this country people who have brown skins who are gentlemen. The Minister cannot get away from that fact. These people travel on first-class tickets. They are people who come from India and other countries, and when they purchase first-class tickets they look for first-class accommodation and treatment. The Minister has not given these travellers the attention they deserve. I have received a letter from one of these gentlemen, who says that on a certain day in February of this year, he and another traveller of the same type booked their seats for East London, and their seats were reserved for East London. He immediately saw the ticket examiner, and asked why their seats were reserved in a coach which would take them to Adelaide only, seeing that his friend and himself were first-class passengers for East London. The ticket examiner threw their tickets down, and told them they must get out at Adelaide, and he acted towards these travellers in a very high-handed manner. On arriving at Adelaide, they were informed by another official that they must leave that compartment, and they were piloted to a dirty second-class coach. Here again the writer of this letter protested, and told the official that he and his friend were first-class passengers. The official replied that they would either have to accept this treatment or remain behind. The writer says that it will easily be realized how humiliating it is for him to accept these indignities, and if this is going to be the attitude adopted by some of the officials of the South African railways, it is not going to induce the best class of his people to travel by train in the Union. I would like to mention another subject, and that is with regard to the bedding-boys on the trains. Passengers to-day, particularly lady passengers, complain about these bedding-boys because they are not tidy. I have spoken to the boys, and they tell me that the nature of their work is such that they are not able to keep clean. I want to ask the Minister if he will take into consideration the laundering of these boys’ suits free and without charge. It will not be a very great expense, since the Minister has his laundries at different stations. Then I want to draw attention to the bathroom accommodation on the Union Express. It is an excellent train, every coach carrying a bathroom, but I wonder if the Minister knows that from the cold water tap you get nothing but boiling water, because the cold water tank is situated next to the boiler. I hope the Minister will have the matter seen to. I also want to refer to broken crockery throughout the railway services on all the trains and in all buffets, and particularly cups. I have seen cups with two-thirds of the rim or lip surface chipped away. The Minister must realize that this is a serious state of affairs, for when the glazed surface of these cups is removed a porous surface is exposed. Eighty-five per cent. of people are said to have the germ of tuberculosis latent, and 8 to 10 per cent. of people have that germ in an active form, and the Minister will realize the danger there is in saliva in diseased persons coming in contact with the porous surface. The Minister can keep his saucers, but let him replace the cups. They cost only 3s. 6d. or 4s. 6d. a dozen, but while the cost is very small, the matter is a very important one in regard to the health of the general public. In regard to the beds on the railways, I want to refer finally to those small pillows. They look like two pancakes. The Minister reminds me of a fox. I do not wish to insinuate in the least that the Minister is foxy, but he reminds me of the fox who slept on one single feather, and concluded that if it were so hard to sleep on one feather, how much harder it would be to sleep on many feathers. I do hope that the hon. Minister will see that more feathers are put in these pillows, and I trust the Minister will give these matters that I have raised his serious attention.

I wanted to keep my remarks until the budget debate, but there are a few points affecting my constituency which I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister now. I must say that I am surprised that more grievances have not been brought up in connection with the railways. It is one of the greatest undertakings in South Africa and gives work to thousands. There are thousands of people who use the railways for traffic purposes, and it goes without saying that there must be many people who have some complaint or other. We must remember that there are about 100,000 officials working on the railways, and consequently there must necessarily be people with grievances. It therefore does not surprise me in the least that grievances are aired in the House. Sometimes the grievances are legitimate and sometimes not. We know from experience that even a small business has workers who feel that they have some grievance or other. There are practically no people without grievances. I therefore repeat as the railways employ thousands of people there must necessarily be people with complaints. I have, at any rate, never yet met a railwayman without a grievance. Perhaps even the General Manager has a grievance, and it is a sign that everybody tries to improve his economic position, and is not satisfied with what he already has. It is because we want to go ahead that we sometimes feel agrieved. The Minister must remember this side of the case when we try in the House to exercise sound and constructive criticism. It is said that a certain king was once sick and he was told that if he slept for a night in the shirt of someone who was completely happy he would recover. His courtiers, however, could not find such a person, until they eventually met a poor worker along the road, he told them he was completely happy, and had absolutely no grievance. He was then immediately asked for his shirt, but he had the reply that he was so poor that he did not even have a shirt. The moral is that we all have our grievances and of course also the one hundred thousand people in the railway service. The question facing the Minister and the Railway Board is how to give the people an opportunity to bring just grievances to their notice. The Minister has already made an earnest attempt in this direction by appointing a welfare official who is intended to enquire among the staff about grievances and to try to remove them, but there was a great defect in connection with the appointment of the welfare officer in that he was made subordinate to the heads of the various provinces where he does his work. The result is that that person must also consider his own position when he discovers a valid grievance. If he acts harshly then he is afraid that he will injure his own promotion in that he will make the head officials his enemies. I must say that the present system is a very great improvement on the old conditions. It is a serious attempt to give the officials a chance of airing their grievances. But I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to remove the welfare officer from the authority of the local managers, and to make them responsible directly to the Minister. It will contribute to his going more closely into each case brought to his notice, so that the Minister will have the correct and complete information before him. Then there is the appeal board which tries to give the official the right to go to the proper channel right up to the Railway Board. But in connection with the appeal board there is also a defect. When there is trouble then the official must go and complain to his immediate head and so the case goes step by step until eventually the Railway Board is reached. When the complaint comes from the immediate head he attaches his comment with the result that the grievance is entirely disproved when it reaches the Minister. We know that when a person writes a letter to the newspapers and the editor attaches a footnote then the bottom is knocked out of the complaint. The same happens with the complaint of the official. I do not insist on it, but I recommend for the Minister’s consideration whether we cannot adopt a different method or take a different line so that sound grievances can go to the railway board without being disproved in this way. The Minister will say that they are being overloaded with grievances. I attribute it to the present system. If all given grievances, real or imaginary, go to the Minister and the Railway Board then they will be overwhelmed, and if they are overwhelmed then it goes without saying that they cannot properly go into each case. If a system can be arrived at for the people to go only to the Minister and the Railway Board with real grievances then such a state of affairs would not arise. An Act was passed in 1925 which gave the appeal board the power to finally dispose of certain cases, and then the Minister and the Railway Board cannot quash the decision of the appeal board. It has been said that the Minister has autocratic powers. But I will not go so far as to say that the Minister ought to have such a capacity, and that the appeal board should not have that power of final decision. If a person is found guilty then the Minister and the Railway Board must have the right to quash the judgment if they have reason for thinking otherwise. I want to quote a concrete case where a railwayman was unjustly treated. It is my heartfelt conviction. Nevertheless the Minister under the 1925 Act is powerless to set aside the decision. I am thinking of the case of a second-class driver at Bloemfontein named Havenga. There were five charges against him. The first was that he opened a case, the second that he had oil in his possession, the third that the oil was not obtained in a proper manner, the fourth that he tried to bribe a policeman, and the fifth the same complaint as number four. The district board convicted him, and after eighteen years of faithful service to the Administration without a blot on his name he was dismissed. As for the two counts of alleged bribery of policemen, it appears from the statements that he only tried to explain to the policemen that he used the box he opened as a locker to keep his surplus things in. There can be no question of bribery, but at the utmost of influencing policemen because he tried to explain the matter, and not to do anything wrong. The two complaints with regard to influencing the police cannot be seriously regarded. Then I come to the two points about the oil. It was proved that the person tried to get oil for use in his work. There is not a scintilla of evidence that he used it for his own purposes, or took it away. Even the appeal board said that he used the oil in the interests of the administration. What remains? The illegal opening of the case. What are the facts in connection with that? The person states that about three years ago one of the officials who was working with the cases said that case No. 34 was empty. He then asked if he might take it for putting his surplus things in. The official said “yes.” Thereafter Havenga used it for putting his surplus things in. He had his own lock and key for it. As it happened the owner of the case had another key which fitted it. Two firemen stated that Havenga had used the case for about three years to put things into it, and that he regularly took them out of it. He did it openly before everybody. The police arrested him and according to the statement he took a small bottle of oil out of it. Havenga stated that he put it inside. The owner of the case stated that he never missed any oil from it. He did not put it in, and never missed anything. Who then put in the oil and took it out? Where does the oil come from? It is clear that Havenga must have put it in and taken it out. The witnesses testified that he used the case, and the owner stated that he never missed anything from the case. These, however, are the grounds on which the district board convicted him, and after eighteen years faithful service without any discredit he was dismissed from the service and thrown on to the street. Has not this man a grievance? It is a real grievance. And these grievances of this kind sink in with railwaymen, and the feeling exists that the people who have to decide these matters are not qualified to sit in legal cases of this kind. It is also in conflict with law and justice.

Am I then simply to abolish the appeal board?

I am coming to that. I have already said that the Minister has made an earnest attempt to create something for the purpose of securing right and justice, but I say that the Railway Board and the Minister ought to have a final say on judgments. I am convinced that if the Minister and the board had gone into the merits of this case it would have had a different ending. I feel that an injustice was done to this man, and the Bloemfontein community feel it. The Afrikaner Union has already taken up the matter, and various other persons have interested themselves in the case. They feel that a gross injustice has been done to a railwayman who served the administration faithfully for eighteen years. What is to become of the man and his wife and children? He cannot learn well a trade and will become a poor white. If it is the policy of the administration to put people on the street in this way then poor whites will be created. If the Minister or the Railway Board or both had intervened the injustice would certainly not have been permitted, but now a board which was not competent in such a case and could not go fully into the case and which was possibly influenced by other things than appeared from the facts it was investigating, gives judgment, and there is no relief for the man. The Minister does not now possess the power of intervening, and I think it is wrong. I now come to the panel system in connection with which there is much dissatisfaction. I have often referred to it. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction among the railwaymen about it. I admit that I cannot personally suggest a better system, but I just want to refer to a few practices in the system which in my opinion ought to be rectified. Today we have four railway medical officers in Bloemfontein. They draw a fixed salary and are, moreover, allowed private practices. I think that as these doctors get a fixed income they ought not to have private practices as well. Throughout South Africa we hear complaints that the railway doctors do not treat the staff fairly. A railway official has stated that they have to go to the railway doctors at fixed hours, and when they go the doctor is absent. The railwaymen are slighted and whether the doctor treats the people well or badly he nevertheless gets his pay. Another fault in the system is that the railwaymen who know that they must pay their monthly contributions call in the doctor, even when it is not at all necessary. We know that there are cases of railwaymen, because they know they will have to pay in any case, who try to get as much as possible from the railway drug store. The question is whether it is not possible to prohibit the people from calling in the doctor unnecessarily and to see that the people who are really sick get the best medical treatment. I know of a case in Bloemfontein where a railwayman who is not well off paid twenty to thirty pounds to a private practitioner for an operation. Why was that so? Because it is in the interests of the people to call in their own doctor in a case for operation. I ask the Minister to give railwaymen an opportunity in operative cases to call in their own doctor. Where an operation is to be done the people are always inclined to select a doctor in whom they have the most confidence. There is a surgeon in Bloemfontein today who gets £70 irrespective of the fact whether he operates or not. I ask the Minister whether it is not possible to leave the choice of such a doctor in the hands of the people. We cannot deny that those grievances of the railwaymen are well-grounded. If we take the line that the system which has been established on the railways is perfect we are wrong, and we must try to improve this system. I do not want to unnecessarily delay the House, but I just want to make a remark about a certain statement of the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Maj. Richards). The hon. member pointed out that the Minister has autocratic powers and that the Railway Board ought to have more powers. We pointed out that this was an Act which was introduced by his side, but he replied that it was a war measure. I will now, however, quote what Minister Burton said at the time the Bill in question was introduced, viz.—

Here then the hon. member has the reason why Minister Burton considered it necessary to give the power to the Minister. It was not because it was an abnormal time or a time of war. He gave the reason that the Railway Board which had no responsibility to Parliament could not possibly be given the power. Now the hon. member complains about the autocratic Minister, but the Minister has the power under the Act introduced by the opposite side. I have now dealt with the few points not because I wanted to delay the debate but because I think that it is of urgent importance for them to be seriously considered by the railway administration.

I would like to allude to the confusion and congestion in the Cape Town docks, which is causing delay and expense. I refer particularly to the landing of cargo. The whole trouble is the inefficient manner in which the work is done. The main and the essential trouble is the handling of the cargo, when it leaves the ship’s slings, and the way in which it is handled leads to innumerable delays, expense and congestion of the worst kind. The tallying is so badly done that the clearance is not done with the rapidity with which it should be done, and the administration is overloaded with queries and questions which would never have arisen if the tallying were done correctly. Shipowners and the commercial community have endless trouble, because the initial work of landing the cargo is badly and inefficiently done. I would point out to the Minister that under the law the administration has to grant receipts immediately the cargo is landed on the wharf, but, in many instances it does not grant them until months after, and all owing to not getting the right kind of man to do the work. This is not only an expense to the shipowner and merchant, but means an untold cost to the administration. If you have to put on five expensive men to disentangle the faults of one tally clerk, it costs the administration a considerable sum of money, besides delays, which hamper the administration’s work. It is to the interest of all parties that this work should be done in the most efficient manner possible. I am told, and the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, or find out from his administration and put the thing right if what I say is correct, that a good many of the tally clerks who are the pivots on which our cargo handling machine rests are simply temporary hands. They are of a very indifferent kind, instead of being men chosen for their reliability, and who should have permanent and regular employment with the administration. I would like to refer to a few instances to prove what the effects of this bad tallying are. I cannot speak of the other docks. I hope they have got a more efficient system. I will give three cases. The one is the “Ubena,” which landed cargo. It had 22,319 pockets of sugar. The administration’s tally was 21,699 pockets, showing that they short-landed 620 pockets, but the harbour administration then delivered to the consignees 22,319 pockets. They delivered 600 more pockets to the consignees than they said they anded. That is one instance of what I mean. Practically what the ship said was in their hold was there, and they landed the stuff, but the tallying was so bad that they were 600 out on one tally on one ship, leading to delays and an enormous amount of extra work on the administrative staff of the harbours. The “Usambara” tally showed 937 packages short, and 61 cases of other cargo in excess. What actually turned out to be the case was that there was short one case, three bundles and 89 pieces of boards—that is, 93 things were short, when your tally clerk said there were 937 short. The “Dortmund” showed that there were 133 bales or sleepers short, but it was eventually discovered that there were two pieces of steel bars and seven steel sleepers short, and yet, according to your tally men, there were 133 cases or bales or packages short. I have given instances showing that the tallying is bad. Next, with regard to the length of time taken to find the actual position. A vessel arrived on the 17th March, and it was not until the 25th May that for the first time the administration wrote advising a shortage, though previously the administration had given the agent of the ship a clean receipt. I have a similar case in which the administration took four months to send an advice to the agent. I would like to mention a few other cases. The first case is that of the “Roxen,” which arrived 2nd December, 1928, the return for which was not received until 13th April, 1929. The “American” came in on the 9th of September, 1928, and the return was received on the 13th of February, 1929. A supplementary return was received on the 22nd of March, six months after the vessel had left the port, and the whole transaction, so far as the shipowners is concerned, had been forgotten. It took six months before they came to a final conclusion in the matter. I think that indicates to the Minister that there is really a case for investigation. There is no doubt that the congestion is very bad. There are delays in connection with cranes which may be a contributory cause. Then I am informed the timekeepers take two hours a day passing the staff through, so that there is a considerable delay there. But these are subsidiary causes of the complaints. The main complaint is that you cannot start your dock work until you know what came from the ship on to the wharf. If a mistake is made there, you get endless trouble throughout. Then, before one ship’s cargo is cleared away, another ship comes in, and the new cargo is piled on the old. All these matters are caused by not expediting the work. I agree that the work of tallying cargo is not a job for any man. It requires great perseverance and power of sticking to it, and extraordinary care. If the man takes down a wrong number of a case, that second’s mistake will take somebody else five or six hours to put right. I strongly urge the Government to go into the whole matter, and see if the thing cannot be remedied. I am certain that the Minister will appreciate one thing. I am making a suggestion which is going to save money for the administration and not be any additional expense in any way whatsoever.

Certain questions have been raised, and my name has been mentioned in the course of this debate. The question raised by several hon. members is in reference to the dissatisfaction which exists on the railways at the present time. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) emphasized the fact that a number of men had been sent overseas, and that there was great dissatisfaction in the railway service because these men had been sent overseas. There is at the present moment, on the railways, quite a lot of really genuine dissatisfaction and a tremendous amount of engineered dissatisfaction. There was one error made in the appointment of these men to go overseas. That is the official. The official, in notifying the men, used the word “nomination” instead of “recommendation.” Even if the Minister had asked for the nomination of men and men had been selected to go overseas, there would still have been these grievances and dissatisfaction because someone else had not been sent. That is the position in regard to the men going overseas. I do not know whether they will be of any advantage to the Minister when they come back. I do not think they will. I do not think that they can learn very much over there. But I will tell you what would have been very beneficial to the Minister, that is, if he had sent some of his officials over there to learn something.

Yes, I have.

Your chief mechanical engineer has gone over, and if you had sent one or two other officials, they might have learned something and have brought back some modern ideas with them. Much of the dissatisfaction to-day and much of the inefficiency in the railways to-day is not due to the men or to the skill of the men. It is undoubtedly due to inefficiency in officialdom, in supervision. However, these men have gone, and they will not learn very much. A very great deal has been made of the dissatisfaction existing in the railways because of the recent appointment of 46 piecework inspectors. That is undoubtedly a genuine grievance which exists in the workshops at the present time. Still, it is a grievance that could very easily be remedied. I shall not be carried away with the florid language used about the shops, about the men burning with indignation, and the Government stroke, and of people going about with stopwatches in their hands. That is absolutely nonsense. Neither shall I be carried away with the talk that the administration is speeding up the men. These wild statements in the House and the charges made against the Minister, if investigated, would be found to be quite unfounded.

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

While I disagree with many of the things that have been said about appointments, I think the men have a genuine grievance because of the interference by the inspectors with their work. Some years ago there was a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction in the railway workshops, and in 1918 a conference was held in Cape Town, the principal object being to deal with war conditions. The conference was attended by Mr. Burton, the then Minister of Railways and Harbours. Sir William Hoy, trades union officials from Johannesburg, and direct representatives of the men. We discussed the piece-work system with Mr. Burton, and we make a suggestion—which he accepted—that the men should have an equal voice with the Administration in the drawing up of piece-work schedules. We realize that in the drawing up of these schedules, which contain thousands of items, anomalies were bound to arise, and we suggested that in regard to any price, if, in the opinion of the head foreman, too much was being paid for the job, a time study should be made of it under the supervision of the charge hand and a shop steward. When the time in which the job could be carried out had been ascertained under actual working conditions, application should be made to the chief mechanical engineer to alter the schedule accordingly. The Administration has loyally carried out that agreement. However, within a very few months of the drawing up of the schedule, some twopenny-halfpenny charge hands came along and they said that in their opinion too much was being paid for particular jobs, and, on their own responsibility, they began to chop and change the schedule without first having had the agreed-upon time studies made. On one occasion two of our members came to me with their piece-work vouchers which showed that the time allowed was not in accordance with that in the schedule. I saw the mechanical engineer at that centre, and he invited me into the workshop to see the charge hand. He asked the charge hand to show him the schedule, which he did, and down the margin in red ink in the charge hand’s writing were alterations in many of the items, and that went on until the men not only became dissatisfied but properly mixed up. Another error made by the late chief mechanical engineer (Mr. Collins) was that he got into his head to have one uniform schedule right through the country. A proposal like this is ridiculous, because there are not two workshops which are similarly equipped—some have better machinery than others or have better grounds for working. Then these piece-work inspectors began to chop and change, and to make confusion worse confounded. The remedy is quite simple—to get to the point for the Administration and the men to agree on a certain price for a job, and when this is agreed upon for the Minister to put his foot down so that nobody will make a change without making a time study of the job to find what the position is. In 1918, that was accepted right through the field. In Uitenhage, as the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) will remember, we had a meeting at the Railway Institute, and when it was explained that piece-work was to be worked along that line, it gave great satisfaction, and that would have continued to this day had it not been for these charge hands. The remedy is perfectly simple, and not as the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) would make us believe. If the Minister will adopt what I have suggested, there will be greater efficiency and a considerable saving in money. Piece-work inspectors think they are saving £2,000 or £3,000 where we spend £40,000 to save it. If the Minister will get rid of these piece-work inspectors right away and adhere to the prices, it will give satisfaction. In the British Isles we had prices laid down, and once we had decided, there was no alteration unless certain machinery had been brought into operation; and no foreman could alter those prices. The head foreman in the department must take the responsibility for piece-work, and if the Minister has any head foremen who will not take that responsibility, put them out and put those in who will take responsibility. I was talking to some of the workshop men the other day, and they were complaining to me. I said: “If this is going on and these piece-work inspectors are interfering with your work, what is your head foreman’s duty and what is he doing?” They said his job was to make out requisitions for stores, or if one of their women got sick he gave them the pass ont. I ask the Minister to take a firm hand and go through these railway workshops if he has the time. In the appointments he has permitted to be made he has turned into the workshops a large number of non-producers who should be got out. I think the efficiency of the workshops can be considerably increased if the Minister would have an enquiry into their lay-out. Let me give two instances. He has built a very big shop in Bloemfontein, where some errors have been made in the lay-out. The distance between each of the pits is such that there is not much efficiency there. The worst case of all is the very latest one built—the wagon shop in my own constituency. The secretary of the Chamber of Commerce asked me whether I could arrange with the chief mechanical engineer to allow them to go through the shop. I had the opportunity of doing so, and we went through it. It is tremendously big, and the roof is very high. I asked the chief mechanical engineer what was the place high up, and he replied, “the tool room.” I said: “What is going to happen; do you not think you will lose too much time through that?” Take a man who leaves his bench to get a tool. It will take him a minute to go to the stairs, three minutes to go up, and another two minutes to get the tool—or it will take him 12 minutes to go up and come back. There are 520 men, and multiply the time lost by that, and you see the number of hours every day which are wasted. I am raising these points, not to criticize the Minister, but to try to help him to have efficiency, and to bring down the overhead costs. The whole thing requires a searching enquiry. There should be a searching enquiry into the functions of these inspectors and as to whether the equipment and methods of the shops are satisfactory. If that is done, I am satisfied thousands of pounds can be saved in the administration of the department.

I wish to refer to that excellent report of the road motor competition commission which has been before the country for some weeks. It has been well received in every quarter, even by those who at the outset were inclined to criticize the personnel of the commission. Our divisional councils will be glad to know whether the Minister intends to carry out the recommendations of the commission, and to introduce legislation during this session. The maintenance of our roads travelled by these heavy lorries involves a tremendous expense to the councils, and in some cases almost beyond the means of the council, and motor competition is becoming more serious as time goes on. I know from my own knowledge that in my area on an average there are five or more big lorries travelling every day carrying 20 bales of wool or three tons each from Burghersdorp, Maclear, Elliot and Wodehouse, and as far north as the Orange Free State to East London travelling over our roads. About 15 tons of wool were being carried daily, and these lorries come back laden with drums of petrol. This diversion of traffic from the railways must sooner or later tell its tale on the railway income. On two occasions, in 1929 and again this year, a resolution was passed by the associated Cape Eastern public bodies with reference to the regrading of the Cape eastern main line to the following effect: “This congress is of the opinion that the question of grades and curves on the eastern main line should receive the immediate attention of the Railway Administration, which were duly communicated to the department. The Minister, in his reply to the resolutions, informed these public bodies that no scheme for the improvement and the regrading of the eastern main line was contemplated, and that it would involve the expenditure of a very large sum of money. I notice that when the eastern system manager at East London attended a conference of the eastern public bodies at Alice he admitted that the sooner the line was regraded the better, but pointed out that the gradients had nothing to do with the accidents that had taken place. According to the communication received from the Minister, however, it is purely a question of expense. There is no indication that it is not warranted. I would point out that the whole future prosperity of the harbour at East London is affected by this question of the regrading of this line, as already we have been penalized by not securing the manganese ore traffic and the maize traffic from as far north as the southern Free State, which is within the Buffalo harbours legitimate sphere. A good deal of dissatisfaction, and which I maintain is justified, prevails in the Eastern Province at the treatment received at the hands of the Railway Department. It seems as if it is a case of anything will do for you, take it or leave it. We are treated like a Cinderella. We are not getting a fair deal. I would like to mention as an illustration what took place when members were travelling on their way to attend this session of Parliament. At a little past seven in the morning we were hauled out of the train to have breakfast on the station at Stormberg Junction. There was no dining car attached to our train until we got to Rosmead, where he had lunch in a dining car which was hooked off again at Naauwpoort Junction. A little after five in the afternoon we had to have dinner at De Aar station refreshment room. We never saw a dining car again until we reached Touws River the next morning at 10.20, and then expected to have lunch at 12.30. Travelling through the Karroo in the summer months at the best of times is a most uncomfortable state of affairs for passengers, but under such circumstances it is positively annoying. We do not expect unreasonable things to be done by the Minister as far as the question of regrading the eastern main line is concerned, but we think the expense could be spread over several years, as long as the matter is tackled in earnest and not simply put off on the ground of expense when large sums are being spent elsewhere on similar works. When the line was originally built it was done by contract, and I am informed the contractors were paid at so much per mile, so there was no attempt to try to make cuttings and get the line straight through on a fair gradient. Buffalo harbour is the natural port for a very large number of districts in the Cape Province, Transkei and the Orange Free State. Buffalo harbour is less than half the distance from Bloemfontein to Cape Town, and yet the Railway Department has to cart all the Free State maize to Cape Town to the elevator double the distance. Surely that is not good business on which the railways are supposed to be run. I do plead for some attention to the representations of the associated Cape eastern public bodies, which includes among its members municipalities, divisional councils, agricultural societies, farmers’ associations, chambers of commerce, automobile associations and publicity associations. The association has approximately 70 members, representing all interests throughout the Border and the Transkei, and is a non-party political association. I hope the Minister will give due consideration to this appeal which has been made on two occasions showing the great need thereof if Buffalo harbour is to be allowed to develop to meet the requirements of the business that she is justly entitled to by virtue of her geographical position. There is another matter, which is purely administrative, to which I wish to refer, for it concerns the farmers throughout the country, and that is the practice which prevails when a farmer wishes to send his stock away by rail for a change of pasture. The farmer is compelled to deposit the full sum for the forward and return journeys. When his sheep come back from the grazing at the end of the time he gets a refund of a half of the amount of railage paid. Our farmers feel that with the slump in wool and very little cash available it is a hardship for them to have to borrow this money to pay the department more than the actual amount the department will ultimately receive. I have a letter from a man who sends his stock away regularly. He has got to pay £60 for railage. When the stock comes back he gets a refund of £30. He suggests that he should pay £30 in cash, and give the Railway Department a promissory note for the other £30, and then, if he brings his sheep back and satisfies the Railway Department that he has complied with the department’s conditions laid down in connection with this matter, when the department will have no claim against him, that he need merely claim back his promissory not and not be compelled to go through all the red tape of the department to get a refund of the one-half share of the original payment to which he is entitled. I raise the point now because shortly these farmers will be commencing to trek to their winter grazing to lamb out there ewes, and from our district alone something like 200,000 sheep will go to the Komgha and East London districts for winter grazing. It would be an inducement to farmers to send stock by rail instead of by road if the consideration I ask for is shown to them, and naturally the Railway Department would considerably enhance its income without taking any undue financial risks, as these farmers are generally men of considerable substance.

The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) made an excellent speech on certain problems in connection with the railways, which will have attracted attention, and he also has to a great extent dealt with the point raised by the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). I do not intend to go into all the various points that the hon. member for Sea Point raised, and which have been replied to by the hon. member for Hopetown. I only wish to reply on a very important question which the hon. member for Hopetown raised, and it was also mentioned by the hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller); I mean the question of motor competition. We hope during the present session to introduce the necessary legislation, and I hope the House will be prepared to pass the Bill during the present session. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swarts) with the hon. members for East London (City) (Mr. Bowie) and Bloemfontein (South) (Mr. Haywood) and other hon. members spoke in connection with the sick fund board, and they strongly object to the action of that board in certain cases. I want again to say plainly that hon. members must understand that the sick fund is a body which is quite independent of the Railway Administration, and the Railway Administration and the Minister as such have no right under the regulations to give the sick fund board any instructions as to their policy. The only power the Administration has is to approve or disapprove of the necessary doctors. For the rest it is an independent body, and if hon. members, therefore, object to what this board has done in the various systems, I can only tell hon. members that they must refer the railway staff, who are dissatisfied, to the constitution of the board on which the railways staff elect 50 per cent. of the members. Each section of the staff elects representatives on the board, and if, therefore, there is anything done against their interests, it is the easiest thing in the world for the engine drivers or firemen, e.g., instructing their representatives to do the needful, and unless this House is prepared to say that the Administration must interfere in the duties of the sick fund board— and I am not prepared to interfere—such points must be raised by the representatives mentioned on the boards themselves.

But the 75 per cent. over and above the amount is paid by the country, and I think the Minister must have the right of interfering.

It is interesting to hear that the Administration ought to have greater powers in connection with the sick fund board. I do not know if that is the general view of the House. When a few years ago I took the power in connection with approval or disapproval of doctors there was a tremendous fight. I do not know whether it is the desire of the railway staff for us to have more power. The board fas full authority in connection with special doctors, ordinary doctors, hospitals, etc. I do not think it is expected of me, therefore, to go into the various grievances in this connection. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) asked what our experience was in connection with the transportation learners. Eighteen months ago we introduced the new policy regarding graduates. Our object was to attract them to the railway service. And hon. members know there was difficulty in getting such graduates to join the service in the past, and they had to start in the clerical service at grade 5. That was quite unattractive. Therefore, in order in future to train our boys for the higher posts, we introduced the new policy, and we are engaging the transportation learners. They are trained for two years, and the young men get experience in various directions. They go into the goods sheds, do station work, and have also to pass examinations, so that they are good shunters and checkers. After two years they can be promoted to a second grade post, and, therefore, we make it possible for them to enter the service and get a decent salary. Doubtless we shall find the future leaders in railway matters from amongst our own graduates. I am glad to say that our experience with these young men is particularly favourable. We have a particularly smart lot of boys in the service, and the policy will certainly yield good results. Now I come to the speech of the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys). I am sorry he is not in the House because there are certain things that I must answer, and which undoubtedly must be deplored by everyone who heard him. I see from Hansard that he said this—

I ask any member who represents a district stricken by drought whether the department has not gone out of its way to assist the unfortunate people in every way in their misfortunes. We have left nothing undone. It seems to me that the hon. member does not appreciate that we carried the stock for one-fourth of the tariff, and took promissory notes for the amount due. Not one of the people—so much is spoken about letters of demand—got a letter from the attorneys unless he was perverse, and the magistrate said that he was so. The people are from time to time notified what they owe. The hon. member tries to represent that we have done nothing. He says irresponsible things. As he is not in the House, I will not go into it further. There is, however, another point the hon. member raised on which I must say a few words. He said that owing to lack of sympathy we have higher rates for the motor services than for the ordinary railway. If the hon. member only thought a little, two factors would immediately strike him. The first is that the locomotive can haul freights of from 250 to 1,500 tons, the motor, even if it is the largest in the country, can only transport five tons, and seven or eight tons with a trailer annexed. We cannot, therefore, charge the same rate; and a further factor is that coal is used on the railways, the cheapest fuel, but petrol on the buses. Then the hon. member, I regret to say, made an attack on the general manager. He said, without giving the least proof, that the general manager was unsympathetic towards the Afrikaans-speaking people in the country. That is very unfair and not correct. The hon. member, in this connection, was referring to the appointment of the staff. Let me tell the hon. member that the general manager has nothing to do with it. The staff clerks look after it, and the welfare officers advise. The general manager is not unsympathetic but sympathetic, but he, of course, wants justice to be done to both sections of the population, as I also do. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (South) (Mr. Haywood) asked me if it was not possible to give the welfare officers a little more independence. The welfare officers work in a system and must be subordinate to the system manager. If I allow them to report direct to the general manager what will become of discipline? Any matter can be brought to the notice of the local official, and if it does not satisfy the welfare officer he can bring it to the notice of the system manager. Discipline must be maintained and the hon. member need not be afraid that the welfare officers are afraid of doing their duty. They are a class of people who are not afraid. Then the hon. member said—if I understood him aright—that the Railway Board and the various appeal boards ought to have all original documents in connection with the discharge of persons. That is done. No single appeal is dealt with unless all official documents and formal documents are before the appeal board and the Railway Board. Then my hon. friend, I regret to say, again mentioned the case of the driver who was found guilty. He admitted that the Minister and the Railway Board, under the Act of 1925, had no right to intervene. The appeal board in that case also contained a representative of the train running staff. This line of action is pursued. When a man is charged then one of the judges who hears his case is a man from his own grade. When an appeal board comes to a unanimous decision that the person charged is guilty, ought there to be a further hearing? Such a decision ought to be final. I think that this disposes of all the matters raised by this side of the House.

† During the course of the debate, a number of hon. members on the opposite benches have raised a large number of questions dealing with complaints of really such a minor character that I hope they will forgive me when I say that these are questions which could have been disposed of by the general manager at Cape Town, who, I know, is always prepared to see hon. members; or they could have been disposed of by the system managers of the different systems. We have had speeches dealing with train delays. Do hon. members expect me to deal with train delays here? Do they want to make a farce of our whole railway system? They have dealt with the indifferent handling of goods. That should be brought to the notice of the system manager and his officers. Then they want different services expedited. They complain of dirty carriages. I earnestly ask hon. members to give the general manager and his officers the opportunity of dealing with these complaints. Surely it is appreciated by Parliament that the Minister is responsible for policy, and that such matters should be dealt with by the general manager and his officers. I do not propose to take up the time of the House by referring to any one of these matters. I may say, at the same time, that the general manager has been asked to read most carefully all the speeches made by hon. members on these matters of detail, and they will be dealt with by him in the ordinary course.

That is not fair to the manager. This is a new way.

It is, and I hope the House will accept the new and sound method. I put it to hon. members that it is wasting the time of Parliament, and also interfering with the management, when we deal with matters of this sort. I come to another aspect, that is the position of individual employees in the service. We have had here a most extraordinary position. Hon. members have raised cases in regard to individuals. Surely hon. members must appreciate that the raising of individual cases in this House cannot but be subversive of discipline. In the course of this session we have had many questions, and in the course of this debate large numbers of questions have been raised in connection with individual cases. All I can say is, that if Parliament desires our general manager and his officers to be able to carry out their great responsibilities under most difficult conditions, we must respect the regulations under which the duty is laid upon the staff to deal with individual grievances in terms of the regulations. If Parliament does not do that, we shall make the task of the general manager and of his officers impossible. So far as I am concerned, and so long as I am at the head of the Railway Department, I shall not deal with individual cases in this House, because they must be disposed of in terms of the regulations.

Not where a question of principle is involved ?

That is quite a different matter. When a matter of policy is involved, the Minister is responsible and hon. members are within their rights when they raise such matters. A waitress is dismissed at De Aar, and the House is asked to listen to a speech for half an hour in that regard. I ask seriously how can the catering manager and his officers carry on their work when such cases are raised in this House? As a matter of fact, I am satisfied that the catering manager was absolutely justified in the action he took. I ask the House, when such questions are raised in the House, what is going to become of the discipline in the service? This case does not refer to a question of principle.

It was dismissal without a charge.

No, this is a case where the catering manager dealt with it on sufficient grounds, and he was justified in his action. We must have efficiency in the service, but we cannot have that if hon. members raise individual cases in this House. I regret the leader of the Opposition is not here, and that the deputy leader has also left the House, because I wish to draw their attention to a very remarkable position that has arisen.

A messenger can he sent for the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan).

A most extraordinary position has arisen in regard to matters of this sort. It appears clear that the leaders of the Opposition have abdicated their leadership, and in regard to railway matters they have turned it over to hon. members sitting behind them.

You don’t like criticism, or why this squealing ?

I shall deal with some of the hon. members’ friends and he will see that I have every reason to complain. Surely when we are dealing with a State asset in which about £150,000,000 are involved, we must have responsible criticism. Otherwise, how will the heads of the departments carry on the work? I will give some instances to show to what lengths this policy of irresponsible criticism has gone. The hon. member for Greyville (Maj. Richards) evidently has now taken charge.

Taken charge of Greyville.

I will show how he has fulfilled his responsibility to the unfortunate electors of Greyville. Under his leadership a new party has been formed—a party of irresponsibles.

They are worrying you.

He made a great grievance of the fact that we are deducting certain contributions for funeral benefits. If the hon. member had taken the slightest trouble to ascertain the facts, he would have found that these deductions are made at the request of the men themselves, and at any time they can withdraw the stop order under which the deductions are made. His next grievance is that this wicked Government—[Hear, hear]—have actually deducted from the pay sheets of daily paid men contributions towards the pension fund on the basis of a 30 days’ month, although they have worked only 26 days during the month. No "hear, hears” now.

Where would you be if they did not put up a case you could answer ?

The responsible leader now tries to cover up the tracks of his unfortunate colleague. Does the leader of the irresponsibles not know that this was one of the great concessions made to the daily paid staff, and that it costs the country £45,000 a year to allow them to increase their pensionable benefits in this way? One must sympathize with the unfortunate electors of Greyville in being represented by an hon. member who misrepresents their views. The words “Where ignorance is bliss ’tis folly to be wise” have no doubt been inscribed on the banner of the irresponsibles. Let me congratulate the new party on a worthy recruit— the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). He said that all new entrants to the railway to-day are taken on as labourers, and that “this wicket Government” will not give anyone an opportunity to come into the service except as labourers. I corrected him when he said this, but he persisted, and stated that I was wrong. In 1929, we admitted 6,034 labourers and 816 probationers; the latter are between the ages of 16 and 21. The admission of probationers is one of the best changes we have introduced.

What grade do they pass on to?

They pass on to all grades— clerical, shunting, checking, and other grades. We have also taken in three graduates last year, and seven in 1929, 89 apprentices have also been admitted.

I said that.

The hon. member is a worthy recruit; I congratulate the party of irresponsibles. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and a large number of hon. members opposite have dealt with what they call the policy of espionage, bullying, and so on. On what is this based? Let me give the House the facts. When Col. Collins was retired on pension, I think I can make the statement without fear of contradiction it was felt that the step was a correct one. We appointed Mr. Watson, one of our younger men, as chief mechanical engineer. I know nothing about workshop practice, and do not pretend to know anything about it. All I can do is to bring an impartial mind to bear on questions arising in connection with the workshops. When I appointed Mr. Watson I indicated to him that he had the confidence of the administration, and I asked him to deal with our workshops and endeavour to get better results. He has done so, and as part of his improvements appointed bonus inspectors. Hon. members now attack me—they have every right to do so, because I take full responsibility for appointing Mr. Watson—but, in effect, they are attacking their chief mechanical engineer. No Minister who is not himself a technical man can under any circumstances dictate and say to the chief mechanical engineer how he is to run his shops.

Half the men are dissatisfied.

Having given our confidence to Mr. Watson, I am entitled to say to him that we want a greater output and better efficiency.

And never mind the men.

The hon. member is making an irresponsible statement. He knows perfectly well that both the chief mechanical engineer and his officers have shown every consideration to the men; but we must have greater efficiency and increased output. We will not otherwise be able to compete with oversea manufacturers. It is common cause that the wages paid to skilled men oversea are much lower than here.

America?

In America the conditions are totally dissimilar, because they have a much bigger output and mass production. I am referring to the Continent and Great Britain. I say our wages to skilled men are about twice what they are in Great Britain.

That is an irresponsible statement.

Does the hon. member deny that artizans in similar shops receive about 10s. a day in Great Britain? That is the information supplied to me. Unless our conditions are such that we have a higher measure of efficiency, we cannot possibly compete with conditions oversea, and the chief mechanical engineer, in his desire to obtain increased efficiency, recommended that bonus inspectors should be appointed. I ask reasonable members under those circumstances, if they were in my position, would they have turned down these recommendations? I was not prepared to do so, and I am satisfied, as the result of the appointment of these inspectors, that conditions have much improved. I want to say here that I strongly deprecate the attack made in respect of the action which has been taken, and for which I take full responsibility, as I do not want to shield myself behind the chief mechanical engineer. I now come to another question, closely cognate to this, which has been raised, viz., the appointment of artizans on the oversea delegation. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) is under a misapprehension— members of the supervisory staff are also members of the delegation. Hon. members have asked me for information. I very much regret the misunderstanding which has taken place and aroused so much feeling in the minds of the Artizan Staff organization. During the course of last year it was brought to my notice that New Zealand and other countries had adopted the policy of sending a number of the supervisory staff and practical artizans in their shops to study conditions in Europe and America. I came to the conclusion, after consultation with the officers, that it would be an excellent policy to carry out in South Africa. I laid down certain conditions, and one of them —I want to say frankly—was that these artizans should be bilingual. There was never any doubt about it. Although I have never insisted on bilingualism on the part of artizans in our shops—we are quite satisfied if a man is a good workman—hon. members must appreciate that in our shops we have large numbers of both English- and Afrikaans-speaking artizans. Surely they will appreciate that it is absolutely essential that the artizans, when they come back, should be able to address meetings in the shops in both the official languages.

Is it a fact that you have sent some who were not bilingual?

No.

The charge has been made that that is so.

The five artizans selected are all fully bilingual. Some difficulty has arisen about the word “nomination” as against the word “recommendation.” The Artizans’ Staff Association take up the attitude that because they were asked to nominate, their nominees would be accepted by the administration. If there is this very great difference between nominating and recommending—personally I am bound to say I do not see the difference—there never could have been any misapprehension on the part of the Artizans’ Staff Association for the reason that while we were asking them to nominate or recommend five men, we had, at the same time, notices in our shops asking the shop stewards also to nominate or recommend suitable candidates. The Artizans’ Staff Association knew that the shop stewards had also been asked, and I may say that I told them distinctly when we met at Pretoria that we reserved the final power of appointment. Now we come to the actual position when these nominations or recommendations were made. The Artizans’ Staff Association submitted the names to us of a coach builder, a boilermaker, a moulder, a fitter and a machinist, of whom only one was fully bilingual, but the shop stewards nominated five men from each of the seven shops. All these names were considered by the chief mechanical engineer, and he finally put up five names, and I accepted the nominations of the chief mechanical engineer. I made no alterations whatsoever. I would ask the House under these circumstances, what becomes of all the allegations made by the Artizans’ Staff Association accusing the administration of not playing fair. If I had not consulted them, they would have complained. Now that I have consulted them, and one of the men submitted by them has been selected—

Could you not have had two of each—two English-speaking and two Afrikaans-speaking ?

There are five men, each representing a distinct trade. Take a coachbuilder, for instance. When the coachbuilder comes back, he must be able to address all the coach-builders in South Africa. I think hon. members will agree that we did a perfectly reasonable thing in pointing out to the Artizans’ Staff Association and the shop stewards what our requirements were, and I very much regret that what I consider a forward step, should have raised all this misunderstanding. I would appeal to the artizans in the shops loyally to accept the decision of the chief mechanical engineer, and to co-operate with these men when they come back full of new ideas.

Are all the men bilingual?

Yes, and three of them bear English names and two Afrikaans names.

Did you approach the other associations as well as the Artizans’ Staff Association ?

Only the Artizans’ Staff Association and the shop stewards. I hope that we shall have most favourable results, and I would say in all sincerity, that if there is cooperation on the part of our workmen when these men come back, I hope this will not be the last time we shall send a delegation. The next time they may possibly go to America, and Canada—

Make it a regular thing.

Yes, but the Administration has not had much encouragement in what, I believe is a laudable step. Now I wish to pass on to another matter. A great deal has been said about our policy in regard to promotions. This question of promotion, more particularly in the salaried grades to which the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) referred, is one surrounded with difficulties. There are some excellent men in the service who have done yeoman service over a long period of years, but have not maintained their efficiency, who have not adopted new ideas, while there are the younger men with less years of service who are more efficient. That is a most difficult position, because as soon as you pass over the older man with long service, he feels aggrieved. The policy we have carried out is bound to bring with it a measure of dissatisfaction. We are placing efficiency first. Seniority is a secondary but important consideration. We have set up machinery after the closest investigation by the Conciliation Board—whereunder promotion committees, on the systems and a promotion committee at headquarters have been established. I accepted the recommendations of the board, and we have carried them out. At the root of the matter is the fact that young men are pasing over the older men. It is essential under modern conditions of transport to have the very best men to serve the public. One has sympathy with the older men, but we cannot overlook the need for efficiency. I am sorry the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) is not able to be present, owing to health reasons. He raised the question of the permanent way. I am sorry he did it in such a manner. I am not here to throw bouquets, but can say that in the person of the present civil engineer, Mr. Pybus, we have one of South Africa’s leading civil engineers. If it were not our definite policy to retire public servants at 60, I should have liked to retain the services of Mr. Pybus for some time longer. I do not know on what the hon. member for Sea Point is basing his statement that the public are nervous. We are spending less money on maintenance. I should have thought the chief civil engineer would have had a word of commendation from the hon. member for Sea Point. Under my predecessor there were reasons why he did not spend sufficient money on maintenance. In 1924 we started on a big relaying programme and now we are saving money also by other improvements. I am told on the authority of the general manager and C.C.E. that the condition of our permanent way is outstanding. Regarding the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), I regret that he is not present. We are not now hearing so much about buying in Germany, from hon. members opposite who have been cured of that heresy, but the hon. member for Troyeville, in his desire for publicity, and, of course, a little commendation from the press, has now started out along a new line. He says, “Why are you buying in Germany; it is true there was a difference of £1,500.” Well, I would commend to the hon. member for Troyeville—to a book placed in my hands written by that arch-imperialist, Lord Melchett. I do not think any member of this House will question Lord Melchett’s imperialism.

You will notice his imperial training.

I am not referring to Lord Melchett’s policy, but of that of the British Government. On page 58, chapter 5, Lord Melchett dealing with the question of preference, states—

I would commend this doctrine to my hon. friend.

I know you would; we do not accept it.

The hon. member raised the question of wages.

It was not on imperial grounds, but cheapness and industrial conditions.

There is not a difference of more than 2s. a day between wages in Germany and Great Britain in similar manufacturing shops. If the hon. member has more information, I shall be glad to have it.

Wages, conditions and quality.

As far as workmanship is concerned, there is no difference.

What about Swiss engines ?

They are of excellent workmanship.

Excellent—at a price.

My hon. friend over there was much alarmed about my calling him a soapbox orator. He gained his seat in that way, so I do not see why he objects to that. He seems to think that every time an engine fails he must ask what manufacture it is. Does he not know that all new engines, including British require readjustments to be made during the initial period, and all of them sometimes fail?

A very different thing to a breakdown.

Let me repeat, that it is the policy of the Administration to place quality first, then price and delivery, although delivery is a minor consideration.

What about conditions of labour ?

No, if the hon. member asks me to be a judge of labour conditions in other countries, I must beg to be excused, but quality comes first always.

What about the question of price and speedy delivery ?

The Tender Board take all questions into consideration, but quality is the first consideration. I want to deal with another point. I regret that the hon. member for Dundee (Mr. Friend) is not here. He made an extraordinary statement, and was supported by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). He said that the Transvaal Coalowners’ Association had indicated to the Administration that they would refuse to supply coal to the railways if we brought coal from Natal into the Transvaal. Notwithstanding that I told him I had no information, he continued to attack. In justice to the Coalowners’ Association, I must read to the House an extract from a letter received from Mr. John Roy—

I suggest to the hon. member that it is most unfair to make such irresponsible statements. The collieries in the Transvaal and Natal have given the Railway Department a square deal. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) has asked why the large bulk of our orders was placed in the Transvaal and not in Natal. On these questions I am largely guided by the departmental heads who take into consideration, I am informed, in making their allocations between the Transvaal and Natal collieries, the following grounds; geographical position, distribution of trucks, haulage, and the efficiency factor. I am, however, prepared to ask the officers concerned, again to go into the matter of allocation, but I think it is a matter for the management and it must be left to those officers. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has made a statement in regard to our handling of goods at the Cape Town docks. I must say at once that the facts, as he has given them to the House, are certainly serious and require the closest investigation. I am sorry that the Chamber of Commerce has not brought this matter to my notice before. It came to my notice only a few days ago, but I shall certainly have the whole matter gone into and, if necessary, we shall take steps to have the matter put right. These delays are not only embarrassing to the importers, but are also wasteful from the point of view of our administration. A comparison was made about the staff position. An hon. member said we must be very inefficient because in Canada the percentage per mile is 4.2 whilst on the South African Railways it is 7.2. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that comparisons of this sort are absolutely unfair. They lead us nowhere. Does the hon. member, who gave us that figure realize that on some systems in Great Britain there are as many as 30 men to the mile? Nobody will say that these private companies in Great Britain are badly run. The conditions are so entirely dissimilar. These sorts of statements may carry a certain amount of weight, but hon. members should be more careful in making such statements because they are a reflection on the management which is not justified. Then we have the terminal charges at Lourenco Marques. The authorities at Lourenco Marques asked the railway administration in connection with our coal shipments to assist them by this surcharge of 4½d. per ton to erect certain coaling plant. That plant was erected and the payment was continued, but we have now consolidated that payment in the share which the C.F.L.M. are getting under the new agreement, so the payment while still in existence no longer appears as a surcharge.

To whom does the plant belong ?

It belongs to the Portuguese authorities. It was done at the time to facilitate the export of coal from the Transvaal collieries. Another hon. member asked a question about the losses on elevators. The position in regard to our elevators is as follows. I would be sorry to think that hon. members are under the impression that our elevators have not been a success. Certainly we have made losses, but hon. members must appreciate the conditions that existed since these elevators have been completed. We have not had a normal year since they were completed. In one year we had a bad season and had practically no maize for export. The next year there was practically no export. I am hopeful that probably this year we shall be able to have a normal year of working. If there is a good crop the farmers put their maize in the elevators and there is regular export, all will be well. My policy is to extend the country elevators but not the coastal elevators. In regard to the Electericity Supply Commission, I am glad to be able to inform the House that we have now come to an agreement favourable to both sides. This will entail an alteration of our existing laws. We hope this session to bring in the necessary legislation. At all events we have been able to make a settlement favourable to both sides.

Are you going to get the rates reduced ?

As a result of the settlement we shall get a lower rate. Then an hon. member has raised the question of the purchase of yellow wood sleepers. Yellow wood is an excellent wood if we can only get people in South Africa to buy it and use it in the form of furniture and for other purposes. Yellow wood properly seasoned makes beautiful furniture, but is not widely used for this purpose. The hon. member can test that out for himself by enquiring from the timber merchants. There is no demand for yellow wood and, that being so, the Administration is continuing its policy of buying yellow wood sleepers. I would point out that only matured trees are cut down in the Government forests. The yellow wood tree, when it reaches maturity must be cut down, otherwise it rots. I fully appreciate the hon. member’s point of view. In order to prevent what is really a wasteful method of dealing with yellow wood, we are erecting a big seasoning plant at George. I hope as the result of the proper seasoning of the yellow wood, we shall be able to make better use of our South African timber. With regard to the criticism of our renewals fund policy it must be borne in mind that provision must be made for accrued depreciation.

The disparity is too much.

I am assured by the chief accountant that it is not too much. The hon. member has also raised the hardy annual of the £13,000,000, but I will not deal with it. As to the sinking fund, hon. members are not of very much assistance. The hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) is strongly in favour of establishing a sinking fund, but the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) is opposed to it. Surely he has forgotten the very point he raised that branch lines, graving docks and other services are not paying. Motor competition is another factor which is coming in. The hon. member wants the central Government to meet some of the deficiencies, but this is not practical politics. We must set aside some amount towards meeting the losses on all these assets which are not 100 per cent. interest bearing. Since I have been in office I have placed £250,000 a year from revenue aside for this purpose. That is something done in the direction in which we ought to go. In this year when we are facing a deficit we are in the fortunate position of having a nest egg of £500,000 in the rates equalization fund.

What about each day standing by itself ?

I have dealt with it on very many occasions.

You have never justified it.

I am afraid I can never justify it to the satisfaction of the hon. member. I have in effect adopted the Hours of Duty Committee report. My hon. friend clearly is not against me, but against the representatives of the railwaymen who have abandoned the idea.

I am against you taking advantage of them.

No, I said I would carry out the report as far as possible, and this has been done except in respect of guards and examiners. I was not going to say anything more about the remarks of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane), but I must refer to his attack on the storage of the furniture of the general manager which was conveyed from Durban to Johannesburg. I have seldom listened to a more unfair attack on a senior official of the service. The hon. member knows perfectly well that in the Select Committee on Railways, of which I understand he is a member, he will have every opportunity of probing that matter to the very bottom. Without any consideration for the prestige of the general manager, who has to carry a heavy responsibility, the hon. member has made a most unfair attack on him. The general manager had every justification for his action. The house he occupied at Durban was a departmental one, and when he left Durban the assistant general manager required it, so that the general manager had to pack his furniture. He went to Johannesburg and found that the late general manager who was then on leave desired—as he was entitled to do—to retain the house. These are the facts. Surely I was justified in giving special approval to the extra expenditure incurred under those circumstances.

Do you defend the poor unfortunate labourers when they are attacked ?

Have I not defended them? I have always to the best of my ability been a friend to the poor man in the service, but, of course, the hon. member wants me to go much further than I can go.

Your outlook is narrow, that is all.

The general manager is preaching economy.

I expected the hon. member to apologize for that unwarrantable attack, but he is now repeating it.

You are trying to smother discussion.

I am afraid I am not able to probe the peculiar mentality of such an hon. member. With regard to the vicious attack made by the hon. member for Greyville (Maj. Richards)—the leader of the irresponsibles—on the Railway Board—

If you go on saying it you may believe it.

I do.

Why worry about irresponsible attacks ?

The hon. member for Greyville made a vicious attack on the Railway Board. I am quite prepared to withdraw the word “vicious” and to say he made an unfair attack on the board. It is unnecessary to defend the board, but I wish to say that I found members of the board like Mr. Orr, Mr. Rissik, Mr. Wilcocks and the late Mr. Peter Whiteside, as well as the members of the present board, most helpful. It would be a bad day for South Africa if we were to abolish the board.

We could do it without loss to-morrow.

There is another Irresponsible !

I am not irresponsible.

I ask the hon. member to consult Mr. Jagger. Members of the Railway Board have given excellent service. Where are the business men—those supermen—to he found ?

On this side of the House.

Of course, I know my hon. friends would like a job for one of their pals— but they forget they are not now making the appointments. Did they not make excellent use of the opportunity when they had it? I think it would be most unfortunate if the Railway-Board were abolished.

What do they do?

The hon. member must not expect me to give a reply to that now; if he comes to my office he will get all the information. I want to pay a tribute to the conscientious and able manner which members of the board, both present and past members, have rendered service. These attacks on the board are most unfair, and its members are entitled to the protection of the House.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

Clauses and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment; third reading to-morrow.

I move—

I do not think it is necessary to take up the time of the House by giving particulars of the Bill, which have been examined very carefully by the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

Clauses, schedule and title put and agreed to. HOUSE RESUMED:

Bill reported without amendment; third reading to-morrow.