I move—

The Bill is designed to secure ratification of the two agreements concluded in February last with Southern and Northern Rhodesia respectively. I have already, on a previous occasion, given the House a fairly full statement of the terms of those agreements, and it will not be necessary for me, at this stage, again to cover the ground which I then covered. These agreements will take the place of those entered into in 1924, and, generally speaking, follow on the same lines, with regard to the free interchange of products. Rhodesia obtains the right, under this agreement, to levy duties on certain manufactures of the Union; the Union also secures the right to prohibit the importation, free of duty, of leaf tobacco in excess of certain quantities specified in the agreement. The existing prohibition in regard to cattle below certain weights and beef and scrap tobacco remain unaltered. Southern and Northern Rhodesia will be able each to frame its own tariff instead of being bound by the Union and Customs Tariff which was in force in 1924. This will remove some of the reasons given by the South Rhodesia Government for denouncing the previous agreement, while the objections have been met satisfactorily by the altered basis of payment of duties on imported goods removed to Rhodesia; instead of a flat rate of 12 per cent, ad valorem, the original duties will, in future, be paid over, less a small charge for the collection of these duties at the ports. Under both methods it is evident that where the Rhodesian rates of duty exceeded the duty levied in the Union goods would be admitted into Rhodesia on more favourable terms than under the Rhodesian tariff. It is one of those difficulties pointed out by the Rhodesian Government and they held it was prejudicial towards direct importers, and defeated the object of the Rhodes Clause which provides for preferential treatment to Great Britain and the dominions. They accordingly proposed in the first instance that all open stock removals should pay duty on Rhodesian tariff rates. Such an arrangement with the consequent refund of duty to Union merchants would have effectively killed our open stock trade. A compromise was therefore arrived at under which on certain classes of goods, as specified in the annexure of this Bill, the Government would collect the duties before removal to Rhodesia. The most difficult point that had to be determined was the question of compensation to Rhodesia for the balance of trade in favour of the Union on goods of Union manufacture, and that was finally settled by retaining the 6 per cent, payment which obtained under the previous agreement, with the exception of those goods on which Rhodesia levies its own duties. In regard to certain classes the old rate of duty has been increased to 12 per cent.; that is on foodstuffs. There is a free interchange of products of the soil with the exception of tobacco. The effect of the arrangement as far as the Union Treasury is concerned is that on the old basis in regard to class 1 and class 2, that is excluding potable spirits, we paid about £17,000, and on the new basis it will be £28,000, and on classes 4 to 13, excluding motor cars, the position is this, that under the old arrangement the payment was £83,142, and under the new it will be £77,723. Then the excise duties also underwent a change. Under the old agreement we were paying £54,570, and under the new it will be £43,717. The totals of excise duties and customs duties are, under the old arrangement, £138,000, under the new arrangement £121,000. As I have already said Rhodesia retains the right to levy duties to be paid by her own citizens on classes 2, 3, and motor cars in class 4, and these duties on the present basis of trade will come to about £67,000, but in this is included £42,000 which is represented by the manufactured tobacco and cigarettes. This will probably fall away entirely in future, as the companies are now manufacturing their own cigarettes in Rhodesia. The arrangement, as far as Northern Rhodesia is concerned, is very much the same. As hon. members are acquainted with the history of the abortive conference which was first held, I am quite sure they will agree that the new arrangement which we have been able to conclude will facilitate, as much as possible, our trade with those two countries on a basis as favourable as it is possible to obtain. I am glad to say that since I made my statement, the country, as a whole, is satisfied that we were able to arrive at an agreement under which the old free intercourse will be maintained as far as possible. I see from the papers that the Southern Rhodesian Parliament has ratified the agreement, and it is now for this, Parliament to do so. I move the second reading of this Bill, under which the agreement will obtain the force of law.

I should like to say that the Minister and the Government will not find the least opposition from this side of the House against this measure. We have been wholeheartedly in favour of some workable agreement being arrived at with Rhodesia. I think the bulk of opinion in the Union has supported such a move, and in Rhodesia, where it was said there was grave opposition to the continuance of the customs union, we see that the agreement has been carried with, I think, the dissension of only three members. Although there has been so much talk of large and violent opposition, the bulk of the people were really united in favour of retaining the existing economic arrangement with the Union. We welcome this agreement. I know that it is very difficult to conclude any agreement of this kind. In previous years we have had, from time to time, difficulty about the customs arrangement with Rhodesia, and especially recently I know that the Government had very serious difficulties, so much so that the first conference at Pretoria was a failure. But I am very glad there has been this good sense supported by strong public feeling in the country, which has brought the two Governments together again, and which has eventuated in a successful agreement. Nothing could compensate for a breach in the economic relations between us here in the south and the sister states of the north. There is no doubt that every tie of interest binds together, and to continue the present arrangement of close fiscal relations is the only basis on which there can be general prosperity, and on which the greatest benefit can accrue both north and south of the Limpopo. I hope that in future this feeling will grow. Although we may be politically divided, yet economically southern Africa is one. Every effort should be made by our Government and the other Governments concerned in order to keep our countries together, and develop them on common lines. The agreement with Northern Rhodesia may turn out to be uncommonly important in the years to come. There is no doubt that in the last year or so a great change has come over the scene, and Northern Rhodesia will go ahead by leaps and bounds and provide one of the most extensive markets for the Union. I am very glad that Northern Rhodesia through all these negotiations has spoken with no uncertain voice. She has decided to remain by the agreement, and we shall have an extensive outlet for our products in the north. Now there is some anomaly under this agreement, but the Government found it impossible to remove it—and it seems for the present inherent in the situation —and that is that we have to pay a subsidy in respect of our manufactures which go to the north. We admit that it is an anomaly. It is a subsidy that is being paid for a certain group of industries in the Union, and not for us. It is difficult to say, as things are, what is the way out, and I cannot blame the Government for having entered into an arrangement which at any rate keeps the door open for our manufacturing industries towards the north. But there appears to be a grave anomaly, and we are doing for our manufacturing industries what we are not doing for our other industries. In the years to come we may see daylight, and for the present I agree with the Government that there is no other way out. I would like to say that I think a good arrangement has been made by giving Rhodesia her own fiscal autonomy. It did seem a very difficult arrangement to work in the past, by which we settled customs policy and Rhodesia had to take it or leave it. We were making inevitably for trouble in the future. Rhodesia had practically nothing to say about her own fiscal policy. Now under the present agreement a severance is made in customs relations, that is to say between imports from other parts of the world into Rhodesia, and the products and manufactures of the Union. Both the Union and Rhodesia will under the agreement maintain their fiscal autonomy, and make arrangements with regard to their own tariffs. I believe that in making that concession, the Government has gone a long way to meet the difficulties of Rhodesia, and it may be possible for many years to keep Rhodesia in the customs union so far as internal South African trade is concerned, while she levies her own duties on imported goods from overseas. I am bound to admit that the Government has made the best arrangements possible under difficult circumstances. I am glad to think that public opinion in this country, both south and north of the Limpopo, has been sufficiently alive to the great interests at stake, to form a great body of opinion behind this agreement, and that the Government has not let the agreement lapse. I hope that as years go by this body of public opinion will grow in support of our common interests, and that no other state or boundary will be allowed to divide southern Africa. This agreement gives expression to our common and mutual interests. We on this side—who look to see the development of the Union take place on common lines, with the states to the north—give our hearty assent to the Bill.

I think we have all reason to be thankful for the agreement come to with Rhodesia, particularly ought we to be thankful that the Government was able to stand firmly by its original attitude, and that in spite of the greatest opposition on the part of an almost unpatriotic public press of hon. members opposite, that the Government stood fast by its original standpoint and concluded an agreement with Rhodesia which is favourable to the farmers. I do not think there has ever yet, on any previous occasion, been so little statesmanship as was exhibited during the negotiations between the Union and Rhodesia. I mean by the public press, and especially the press of the South African party, which showed the country that in connection with that matter they did not put the interests of South Africa first, but used every endeavour to make it impossible for the Government to conclude an agreement beneficial to our country. We are, therefore, very glad that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has said this afternoon that public opinion is satisfied with the attitude the Government has taken up. Last November the Government was apparently wrong. Now the hon. member, himself, states here that it is an anomaly for our Treasury to have to pay 6 per cent, to Rhodesia on the value of our factory wares imported by Rhodesia, but in November the Government was condemned because it stood firm and refused to pay a higher percentage. I think we are indebted to the Government for taking up a manly stand in November, and in that way attaining an agreement which is fair to the Union. We are also glad at the metamorphosis which hon. members opposite have undergone so that the hon. member for Standerton can say that he welcomes the arrangements. [Interruption.] The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) laughs. Perhaps he felt in November that his press was wrong, but he never expressed his view. We hope, however, that if his press should again, in future, act in such an unpatriotic way, the hon. member will consider it his duty to urge upon them that they ought to put the interests of South Africa first. The farmers of South Africa, in particular, are very greatly indebted to the Government for the agreement. The interests of the cattle farmers have been protected, and the tobacco farmers of the Union especially want to express their inward thanks for the protection that has been granted them by this agreement against Rhodesian tobacco. As the tobacco market in South Africa was practically taken away from us by Rhodesia, that is now, to all intents and purposes, prohibited by the agreement. Our tobacco factories buy on the average 15,000,000 lbs. of tobacco a year. The average importation from Rhodesia during the past three years was less than 7,500,000 lbs. Rhodesia had, therefore, captured the half of our market. At the instance of the tobacco farmers the Government saved that position, and the tobacco farmers of Rhodesia can no longer export such a large quantity to the Union. For that our tobacco farmers are greatly indebted to the Government. We have at once experienced the results of the change. The tobacco farmers have already been able to sell tobacco while during the last few years they had a large surplus. During the last few months no less than 7,000,000 lbs of tobacco have been sold which were stored in warehouses. Tobacco is sold to the local dealers. The tobacco farmers are therefore already reaping the fruit of the agreement. I now want to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to one point in the agreement which must be watched; the importation from Rhodesia is limited, and our export to Rhodesia is also limited, that is unfair.

Just listen to that.

The hon. member misunderstood me. I do not say that the limitation as such is unfair, but the proportion is unfair. 2,800,000 lbs. of tobacco can be imported from Rhodesia, but we can only export about 200,000 lbs. to Rhodesia. At present this will not injuriously affect our farmers, but, as the Minister of Finance has said, the Union manufacturers are commencing to establish factories in Rhodesia, and whereas in the past we exported manufactured tobacco and cigarettes to Rhodesia those will now be manufactured by our own people in Rhodesia. The result will be that the export of manufactured tobacco will no longer be so large. If we only give the factories of Rhodesia the right of importing extremely limited quantities of tobacco, they will not be able to get tobacco from the Union for mixing purposes, and they will use exclusively Rhodesian tobacco. When negotiations again take place the Minister must watch this precaution so that we can be put more or less on the same basis as Rhodesia. When factories are opened in Rhodesia we must see that a certain quantity of our tobacco is also used there. As things are now, the market is very restricted, because only about 200,000 lbs. can be imported from the Union, and that ought to be the same quantity as we are allowed to import from Rhodesia. For the rest I want once more to repeat that the tobacco farmers and cattle farmers, in general, are very much indebted to the Government for what they have done.

I was interested to hear the last hon. member who spoke thanking the hon. the Minister, on behalf of the farmers, for the immense benefit that this treaty has conferred upon them. There is one matter of especial reference to the farmers upon which I want some information from the Minister. I want a little information as to the policy which has dictated certain aspects of this agreement as regards duties. The Minister has told us that the Rhodesian Government levies a 12 per cent, duty on certain secondary industries. That duty is being paid by the Union Government which is, apparently, not recovering it from the manufacturers concerned. That is an absolute bounty paid to the manufacturers on the export of their articles. Now, I want to know, first of all, in view of the fact that the Minister has repeatedly stood up in this House and said that the policy of the Government was absolutely opposed to bounties in any shape or form, how he justifies the payment to the industrialists of the Union of this 12 per cent, ad valorem duty that is levied on the export of their products? The Minister may reply and say that this is a legacy from the previous agreement, that this was paid under the old agreement which was not entered into by the present Government. But he refused to continue a duty on the export of beef arranged by the late Government, which was of enormous assistance. The moment this Government came into office they repudiated that bounty on beef although an excellent export trade was growing up. The figures of the first year that the bounty was paid, amounted to £2,000. The second year it amounted to £4,000, and the third year, that is, under the Nationalist Government, it amounted to £12,000. Those figures showed a growing export. They showed that a growing export was fostered by the assistance which that bounty gave to the cattle farmers of the country. The first action of the new Government was to cut off that bounty altogether. They said it was against their principles to pay a bounty on any export product and the result was an absolute cessation of the export of beef in any shape or form. Not one single quarter of beef was exported after the bounty ceased to be paid. I want a clear exposition from the Minister of Finance, and I think the farmers are entitled to it, as to why one section of the community is favoured by the payment of a bounty paid by the Government on the export of their products and the farmers of this country, which this Government tells us they represent, the one section which this Government tells us they particularly stand for—why they refused to consider an equal advantage for the farmers in South Africa. I say that a Government that represents the farmer has no right to extend benefits to one section which it is not prepared to extend to the very section they claim to represent. I think the country is justified in asking the Minister to give us a clear exposition of the policy which lies behind that action, of the policy which, in one breath, moves him to say that he will not consent in any circumstances to a bounty and then in the next breath urges him to give a bounty to another section. We are entitled to ask for that explanation. I have not the figures before me at the moment to estimate the actual amount the Government is giving to the industries and I shall ask him to give us that figure. I think this is a suitable place where the Minister should make a clear statement of the policy of the Government in regard to bounties as between industrialists and the farmers of the South Africa.

I am sure we are all pleased indeed to find that all has come right as between ourselves and our neighbours in the north. I want to support the point of view put forward by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in stating that we should further, as far as we possibly can, the development of cordial inter-relations with those northern states, and that we should not regard ourselves as isolated bodies, but as interdependent communities which have the same objects in view. Beyond stating that, I do not think I would have risen had it not been for the fact that the discussion, as I understand it, has turned upon the tobacco question. My hon. friend here (Mr. Gilson) is upset about certain bounties paid in effect on the export of tobacco.

On secondary industries.

It has the same effect. The hon. gentleman (Mr. le Roux), so far as I can gather, is rather upset because Rhodesian tobacco is now allowed to come into the Union. Well, I can only say this—

It is the contrary position.

He says that they have sold 7,000,000 pounds weight since they stopped Rhodesian tobacco coming in.

That is precisely my point. The hon. member is protesting against Rhodesian tobacco being imported into the Union. That is the gist of his remarks. The time has long gone past when you can stop people from trading. I am satisfied that hon. members and others have the keenest interest in the development of our primary products, but it is a pity that they have not turned their attention more in the direction of developing the sale of our tobacco in other ways than those in which they are now disposed of. It is an extraordinary thing that the whole of the South African tobacco crop goes ultimately into the hands of one huge tobacco trust. You can talk as much about customs agreements as you choose, but the control and even the production and development of tobacco are dependent on the good will of the middle man —that huge concern known as the United Tobacco Company. I hope that as the result of these cordial relations which have now been established between ourselves and Rhodesia, some arrangement may be come to between the two Governments so that we shall get out of the grip of this United Tobacco trust, and whatever other trusts there may be which make it impossible for our farmers either to produce or sell what they produce. I am not going to give a cut and dried remedy, but I will take the opportunity—

I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. member must adhere to the motion.

Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I appear to be transgressing, but it seems that the original conference broke down on the tobacco question, and I was taking this opportunity, in view of that experience, to urge upon the Government to develop these cordial feelings which may have been engendered between the Union and Rhodesia to enter into an arrangement with the latter with regard to tobacco. I understand Rhodesia has opened shops in London and other towns in England for the disposal of its tobacco. Surely it is not beyond our power to so influence each other as to arrange for a united effort in that direction, separate from the trust which has a grip on the tobacco industry, let us manufacture our own tobacco preferably in South Africa, and send the finished article to England and also to America, so that we ourselves can get the resultant profit which I understand is pretty enormous indeed, although the raw tobacco itself returns very little profit to the grower.

The hon. member is departing too far from the terms of the motion.

I will content myself with urging upon the Government that they do not stop with the conclusion of the customs agreement, but to translate our friendliness with Rhodesia into the concrete and get a market for our tobacco.

I do not think that the House will expect me to follow the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) in his important and interesting discussion of the tobacco trade. I do not believe that it is actually germane to this Bill. As for the remarks of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), I do not think he intends us to take them seriously.

Why not? I regard it very seriously.

Well, I understand that there is wonderful unanimity in the House that it is in the interests of the good understanding between ourselves and Rhodesia that this sacrifice of the subsidy has been made. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has already said, and it is a fact, that it was not possible to come to an agreement without this principle which I regard as an unsound principle. I have already on former occasions explained my attitude on this subsidy question. Everyone of us feels that if we are to retain an agreement under which there will be a certain amount of free exchange of produce it was necessary for us to make this concession. It is a provision which existed under the old agreement. Rhodesia must have this revenue on the import of produce, and if they do not get it from us, then they get it out of the import of produce from other countries. We have done everything possible to come to an agreement without this unsound principle, but it was impossible. Now the hon. member says that he wants to know what the policy of this Government is, and why the factories should get the concession which the farmers do not get. The hon. member forgets that it is the result of a historical development. We must take the agreement as a whole, and then we see that the farmers get special benefits. The farmer gets free import of many products into Rhodesia on which other countries have to pay taxes, and, secondly, we give protection against Rhodesia to two very important products of the farmer. That is a very great benefit the farmers get under this agreement. I do not think it is necessary for me to discuss the Government subsidy to the produce of the farmer. I do not think there are many hon. members who will seriously attack that policy. In Australia, where it is done, every product gradually had to be subsidised. If we start subsidising some products we shall have to extend it to a whole series, because all farmers’ produce is in a difficult position. Are the House and the country prepared to pay a bonus on the export of all the articles? I do not think so, and I do not think that it will be a practical policy. Then my hon. friend refers once more to the old bonus on the export of beef. We must not lose sight of the fact how that bonus came about The farmers had no protection at that time, and Rhodesia brought them into a parlous position therefore the Government had to do something. Experience, however, shows that that meant very little to the farmers, only a few large companies that exported meat reaped the benefit. I am not prepared to reintroduce it, and let me say that among all the depressed industries in the country the cattle farmer has little to complain about. He is, possibly, even the best off. The worst quality of meat, e.g., which has to be exported by other countries, finds a market in our country in the Johannesburg mines where the farmers get twice as high a price on a protected market as the farmers in other countries do who have to export that meat. As for prime beef, I want to ask hon. members where the meat is that they want to export? As there has been a tremendous drop in the prices, I say that the cattle farmer has the least cause for complaint. They get a good price for the inferior meat by selling it to the compounds, and for the better quality they get prices which possibly are not very high, but still they are better than the prices that they would get on exporting meat. We have very little room in South Africa where we can breed export cattle, and the reason is that our ground is too dear to make cattle farming for export payable, in Rhodesia and South West where they have plenty of land, and it is cheaper, it is possible, but in our country it is not. I therefore hope that hon. members will not, like the hon. member for Griqualand, say things for which there is little reason. As for the bonuses on export, the past has shown that they produce little benefit to the farmers, and I do not think that the House will be prepared to approve a system of export bonuses.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House Of Committee:

House Resumed:

I move, as an unopposed motion—

This Bill is concerned with the question of the very greatest importance, viz., transportation. Cheap transport is one of the most important factors in the development of any country, but particularly in South Africa, and with the special conditions here one can really say that cheap transport is indispensable. We have to face special factors here; the first is that the interior, where, to a great extent, our goods are produced, lies a very great distance from the coast, while a second factor is that when the goods have once been brought to the coast they have to be carried another 6,000 miles to get to the world market, and for the latter distance sea freight has to be paid. To-day, particularly when the prices of our products are so low, and our farming community have reached the stage that we do not only produce enough for our own needs, but more, in respect of which we have to look for a market, the question of cheap transport is of supreme —importance. In connection with this question, our state railways in South Africa have played a very great role. When we look at history we find that private undertakings never felt particularly attracted to the investment of capital in our railway system in South Africa, and it is clear why that did not take place. We have a sparse population and a very large territory with very great distances, and the necessity of low transportation rates has always been felt from the very start. Where private undertakings did come, as in the case of the old Cape Central Railways, it resulted in particular districts seriously suffering for years, until such time as the state took over the lines. The fact that certain districts were served by private companies handicapped the development of those parts. Because private companies were not, as a rule, prepared to invest capital in connection with the railway system in South Africa the state from the start felt its responsibility to build the necessary railways, but because the state did so under the special circumstances, it also had from the start to face the fact that a number of lines would be built with open eyes, realizing that there was little hope of satisfactory financial results. I do not even speak of profits. Many branch lines were built without there being the least expectation of profit, and the country had to be glad if it could merely get back the running costs. Hon. members will understand how serious the position became. While the state invested the taxpayers’ capital in our railway system, the danger arose that a portion of the goods, which many of the branch lines still carry, is now being taken away and will be transported in a different way. Motor development has come, and it is of great importance that the whole country should now give careful attention to the position, that every taxpayer, in view of the fact that large capital has been invested in the railways, should seriously consider the position. In the course of the last few years an entirely new state of affairs has been created. Where up to the present the state has practically had a monopoly of transport, the position has been entirely altered and such a monopoly, certainly in respect of short distances, no longer exists. Let me emphasize that with regard to competition South Africa is merely at the beginning of things, and has by no means yet had the experience which other railway systems in other countries have had in this respect. Nor is it a fact that because we have a Government railway system we feel the competition particularly seriously. The private railway systems throughout the world suffer from this state of affairs, and every private or state undertaking feels the pressure. The position would not be so bad if there were equal competition between the owners of motor vehicles and the railways, but what is the characteristic of the motor services here? I merely take a few. In the first place, the motor services are penetrating where the Railway Administration has already done development work. We find that the private motor services do not lay themselves out to do development work in parts where there has not yet been proper transport services. They come in the developed parts, and try and get a hold there, and they also get a hold in traffic over short distances. We have another factor which is of great importance. The private motor services only take that class of traffic which gives a good return. In other words, they only take the traffic which is carried by the railways at a high rate, and they abandon the traffic which is carried at a low rate. Further, there is the consideration that the motor services are often conducted on extremely unsatisfactory conditions, e.g., in relation to the vehicles—second-class vehicles of a poor type are often used—to the wages of the staff and also with regard to working hours. Nor is there any proper guarantee if losses are incurred, in case such a motor service is possibly unfortunate. I do not say this of all, but it is the case with many, anyhow. Our private motor services do not pay taxation in proportion to the use that they make of the roads.

What do the railways pay?

The railways pay between £4,000 and £6,000 a mile for its roads. The hon. member did not follow my argument. I am only making a comparison between the private motor services which run on the public roads, and I say that they do not pay taxes for the maintenance of the roads in proportion to the use they make of them, while the railways have to pay between £4,000 and £6,000 a mile. I am not concerned now with railway motor services. We cannot simply disregard this question. Motor transport is developing, and I will prove it by the following figures. I only give a comparison between the year 1928-’29. In 1928 there were 113,002 motorcars in the Union; a year later there were 130,360. In 1928 there were 1,032 omnibuses, and in 1929 there were 1,186. In 1928 there were 10,640 lorries in the Union, and in 1929 there were 13,583. Hon. members therefore see that the number of motor vehicles in the Union grew tremendously, and it would be foolish if we, in this House, and for the country as a whole, now that our roads are improved with the assistance of the central Government, were not to face the fact that the number of vehicles on our roads in the future will increase tremendously. The motor competition has certainly had one good effect on the railways. I want to admit this frankly. Our railway services have improved, and there is greater expedition in delivering goods. There is not the least doubt that the railway officials—I do not exclude the highest officials, and I include the lowest officials as well—have better realized their duty to the public. I do not think that hon. members will deny, with regard to the relations towards the public, that there has been a great improvement in the railway staff. The staff understand that discourtesy and negligence in a railway official towards the public is not only wrong, but that it is punishable, and I may say that we do not allow a railway official to be discourteous towards the public. I do not want to convey that all railway officials are as smart and as precise as we would like to have them, but I think that we will all agree that there is a great improvement. In another respect, however, we must face the fact that motor competition has become a great danger to the railway service.

And do you want to remove it?

No, let me say this; the hon. member will find nothing in this Bill the least calculated to make the railways less effective, and the officials less competent than they are now. I want to put this Bill on the statute look, and I hope the House will approve of it because the Railway Administration, the Government, and I think also the country, have appreciated that motor competition has come, and has come to stop. We said clearly that we had not taken up the attitude that there ought to be a monopoly of transport for the railways. What, however, we do actually want is that there should be proper competition between the railways and the private motor services; not only are good results brought about by the competition, but there are also serious dangers. I want to draw attention to one of the great dangers. The railways belong to the public, and there cannot be anyone who is unconcerned about the £143,000,000 which we have invested in the railways, every penny of which is borrowed money. The people who drew up the Act of Union considered that a sinking fund was unnecessary. The hon. member for Yeoville still holds that view. His attitude is that as long as this state asset is properly equipped in every respect we need not redeem the capital. He knows that I do not agree with him, and I hold the view that provision must be made for a sinking fund. Since 1924, therefore, we have put aside £250,000 each year for the redemption of railway capital, and I think the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) is inclined to agree with us in that respect. There is another factor, viz., the interests of the railway staff. If our state railways are deprived by the motor traffic of a large share of its traffic, seeing that our rates are what they are to-day, and inasmuch as we pay the current wages, we shall not be able to employ the same staff in the future. Take the wages of the staff, the leave privileges, etc., all these could not be maintained at the same standard if the railways lose a part of its traffic. The railway staff are a valuable section of the community, and we shall certainly sadly view the interests of that section of the population being hit by the motor competition. There are possibly members who will say that if our railways are not able to compete with the motors then the country must be satisfied to abandon the capital invested in the railways. They will also possibly say that the staff can be absorbed in other directions. They will, therefore, say that the position is not so serious, and that we can face the loss of £143,000,000, but I now’ come to the third great danger. Our whole rate system is built up on the basis that highly-paying traffic must pay a heavy rate, and low-paying traffic, like agricultural produce and base metals, should pay a low rate.

What about wool?

That is in the middle. Our tariffs run from classes 1 to 10, and I think wool is in the intermediate class. There was, however, a reduction in the wool rate. In connection with this point, I can do no better than by calling attention to paragraph 54 of the report of the departmental committee of enquiry into railway rates. That says that, apart from coal, the traffic of high values at goods rates 1 to 6 was 2,906,661 tons for the year ending 1st March, 1929: the traffic of low values at goods rates 7 and lower was 9,437,417 tons; for this £3,643,234 was received, while in the first case approximately £11,000,000 was received. Here we have a pretty picture of the position, and, as was rightly pointed out, if we increase the low rates by 25 per cent., then it does not even amount to £1,000,000, and it will not give much relief. There is another factor, viz., that the railways are handling seasonal traffic at great expense and loss. During the months of August, September and October, we find that it is necessary to handle large quantities of maize and other produce, and the railways are obliged to keep a large number of engines and rolling stock to be able to deal with that traffic. But just as quickly as the peak is passed we are left with a whole number of engines and rolling stock that are not fully used. A private company would think a long time about it before they follow such a policy, and I hope the farmers will appreciate it. The farmer would gladly avail himself of that favourable position for getting rid of his produce during the harvest as fast as possible, and we wish to assist him in that. But the country must face the fact that when we, as a state undertaking, want to assist the farmer, a section of our rolling stock is not in use during a part of the year. We then do not only have too much rolling stock, but also too large a staff. I have never made a secret of this being the position that during a certain time of the year we have too big a staff. Will hon. members say that we should discharge those people? No, we do not want to discharge them, no one thinks of it; and therefore at times of reduction of revenue and traffic we have too large a staff. Our revenue, e.g., dropped last week to £421,000, so that hon. members see how serious the position is. The point is that we want to discharge no one, but then the country must realize what this involves. It is my conviction that motor transportation in South Africa can never, even under the best circumstances, render the services that the state railways do. Even with the greatest development of the motor traffic it will never be possible, e.g., to carry by motor transport maize, tobacco, coal, manganese, asbestos, and all that kind of produce which is carried at the lowest rates. That time will never come. I am convinced of that.

Why?

Because I have commonsense.

I am talking of the future.

I also. To make it clear, I want to ask my hon. friend whether he thinks it possible when, e.g., 100,000 tons of manganese has to be transported from Posmasburg to Durban it can be done by motor?

No.

Then the hon. member should not put the question. Does he think, e.g., that it would be possible to carry a maize harvest of 15,000,000 bags, and it will become more than that, by lorries? South Africa can never do without its railways, but here the railways are threatened with a great danger. When we realize that South Africa cannot get on without its railway system what are we going to do if all the traffic at a higher tariff falls into the hands of the motor services? Where the competition is absolutely unfair we must take steps to protect the railways against it. I do not say merely to protect them, but to protect them against the unfair and unreasonable competition. I want again to utter a warning to the farmers and traders who think that they are entitled to give the higher class of traffic to the motors, and the lower class to the railways. I want to point out that steps have already been taken in New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland and Italy—and we are considering whether it will not be necessary to take similar steps—to deal with the man who carries all his produce by rail under a preference rate. It seems to me to be a sound business principle. The hon. member for Yeoville is apparently startled, but is it right that trader A, for instance, who trades in village B, should have his expensive goods carried by a lorry at a lower rate than the railways? And does the consumer get the benefit of it? No, the trader puts the extra profit in his pocket. But when it comes to coal and not to silken goods, etc., then the railways can carry them. If it is a full cask then the road motor carries it, but if it is an empty cask then the railways are good enough. I do not propose to introduce such a preference system during this session, but if the position does not improve I shall have to make a proposal to the House to allow the railways to differentiate between the man who fully supports us and the man who, for the sake of his own pocket, only partially supports us.

This almost looks like the Conference Lines.

If we were only in the favourable position of the Conference Lines we would not be in the trouble we are in to-day. I suggest for consideration to hon. members if that is not a step which we shall have to take if we want to keep Government railways in the country for the taxpayer, the producer of minerals, the farmer, and everybody in the country. I should like to see hon. members studying the reports of the commissions appointed in New Zealand and Australia to investigate the matter, because then they will find what is done in other parts of the world. Can we merely take the surplus of the product’s of the traders or farmers and not get the better paid traffic? Or shall we have to lay down if a person wants the benefit of the lower rates he must also give us the better class of traffic? I think that the last should be done. In view of the existing factors that I have mentioned, it was realized that the time had come to institute enquiry, and in February, last year, the Government appointed a commission under the chairmanship of Mr. le Roux to go into the whole question in conjunction with representatives of certain organizations in relation to agriculture, trade and industries, and two officials of the Railway Administration. Hon. members will have seen from the report that the terms of reference were very wide, and the commission took full opportunity of going into the whole matter, not only as to the position in South Africa, but with regard to other parts of the world, and also as to what measures were taken in other countries about the matter. I think that I am speaking for the House when I say that the work done by the commission is of great value to the country. It is, in my opinion, an outstanding work. They did their work thoroughly and impartially, and what is of great value to the House is that they did so in a way which has made it possible to put an almost unanimous report before the House. I should like to express my appreciation to the chairman, and also particularly to the members who gave up so much of their energy and time, and I am also thinking particularly of the representatives of agriculture, trade and industries. The latter rendered particularly good services as members of the commission. It is very appropriate and useful that at the very moment when the House is dealing with the report of the commission with regard to road motor competition in connection with this proposed Bill the report of the departmental commission with regard to railway rates should also be put into the hands of hon. members. That committee also has rendered good service, and I think I am speaking for the House in thanking that committee. I say it is fitting that the House should have the two reports before it to properly appreciate the position. The report about road motor competition can be divided into three parts, the first deals with the appointment of a motor transport board, the second on consolidation of our laws, and taxation of all motor traffic, and the third on a national road board, and the establishment of a portfolio of transport. Those are the three chief recommendations in the report. As for the third recommendation, hon. members who have cone into the matter will at once remark that if we were to adopt it we would come into conflict with a mass of work of the existing provincial councils. The recommendation cannot be adopted without seriously encroaching on the existing powers of those councils. The Government has very seriously considered the matter, but is not prepared to create a portfolio of transport and a national roads board at present. It would mean that the powers of the provincial councils would be interfered with. As hon. members will see, the Bill proposes that when we are compelled to encroach upon the powers of provincial councils we suggest that it should be regulated by voluntary agreement. I do not doubt that we shall be able to make a friendly agreement with the provincial councils. Much important light is thrown on the whole Question, and it is of very great value for the future. The second large aspect, viz., consolidation of motor legislation, and taxation, is a subject of which the provincial councils in 1928 realized the necessity, and an inter-provincial committee was appointed which went into the whole matter, and I understand the report is now ready. As far as I know, it is not yet published, but the whole matter was gone into and the report is ready. After the report now before us was received, I also consulted the administrator and members of the executive committees, and asked them if they would take steps in connection with the consolidation of motor legislation and motor taxation. Let me point out that the present position is intolerable, because the taxation is not equal. It is an impossible position for the taxation to be higher in one province than in another. It is known, e.g., that private undertakings have their motors registered in one province while their principal business is done in another province where the taxes are higher. I have every reason to believe that the administrators who will shortly meet in Cape Town will find a satisfactory solution hereof, and that steps will be taken in this connection. The position must be faced as soon as possible. I then come to the third recommendation which has been accepted by the Government, and is included in the Bill now before the House. It amounts to coordinating and regulating provisions with regard to motor vehicles, without making it impossible for them to exist, without putting them off the road. It is sometimes represented as if the Railway Administration were out to make motor services impossible. That is certainly not the case. Our object only is to eliminate injurious activities detrimental to the public. The great principle of this Bill is that of the public interest. When the public can be better served by railways, the railways ought to do the work. Where, on the other hand, the board to be constituted is convinced that there ought to be competition by motor services to advance the interests of the public, I say that the interests of the public must come first.

Will the railways decide what is in the public interest?

As usual the hon. member does not appear to have read the Bill, and he therefore says that the Railway Administration will decide what the public interest is. I do not know whether my hon. friend runs his business in that way, but I want to tell him that if he is so uncertain about the facts in connection with his own business as about the contents of the Bill, I shall be surprised. The hon. member will have the opportunity of showing where it is said that the railways shall decide what is in the public interest, and I shall be glad to hear it from him. He will, however, not find it. The railways will not decide when it is in the public interest for there to be competition, or otherwise, but the Transportation Board will.

That is stated in the report of the commission.

The hon. member will see that the commission was divided on this point. The chairman and the two members made one recommendation and the other three members another. I am now dealing with the Bill, and I will immediately deal with this point with my hon. friends. Should the board represent various interests? Must representatives be on it of agriculture, of the chambers of commerce, of the industrialists, of the town and provincial authorities, and of the divisional councils, under an independent chairman, and, in addition, representatives of the producers and consumers as well? Where will we land then? I thought that hon. members would welcome my proposal to nominate the board in the Bill consisting of three members who are responsible through the Minister to this House. Am I to understand that my hon. friends suggest a board which is responsible to the bodies appointing representatives and not to this House? Either the Government must appoint the board, and it must be responsible for it to this House, when action is taken, or the Government must delegate its responsibility to the chambers of commerce, industry, agriculture, the Chamber of Mines, and who will then be responsible to this House? No, the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) must read the Bill again. He must not allow himself to be influenced by interviews in the press about the Bill, but by the Bill itself. I seriously object to a body as proposed by a section of the commission. Such a board would be too large and unwieldy. It will be too clumsy, because it represents too many interests. I have already given my second reading, viz., that the proposed board will not be responsible through the Minister to this House. Owing to the representatives representing various bodies and interests there will be no consistent action, and the body, as a whole, will be irresponsible. Before I proceed to Clause 3, I want to point out that they have also subsidiary boards in the urban areas and in the district. There must be local boards to assist the central board in connection with the fulfilment of the duties and powers entrusted to it. Then I come to Clause 5, which defines the Dowers of the board Hon. members will see that under paragraph (b) the board has the power to proclaim the scope and nature of motor transport in the various areas. This is a matter of great importance. But if the board is to be true to its obligations and able to fulfil them, we must give it that power. The board will also have the right to issue certificates, to hear appeals, to enter into agreements with the provincial authorities, and other public bodies in connection with the exercise of its duties. Clause 6 provides that the details in connection with motor transport, and the certificate must be supplied to the board. Clause 6 (b) provides for fixed rates of transportation, and the publication thereof. Some people strongly object to the tariffs being published. In America, where the problem has assumed greater dimensions than with us, some of the states go so far as to fix a tariff for private vehicles They not only publish the tariffs, but they take the power there to fix tariffs, so that there shall not be unfair competition. I do not go so far, but here it is only provided that private motor services must publish their tariffs, and that then they must be continued, at any rate, for a considerable period. They will then not be able to dare to give special rates to certain persons as is the case now. We find that to-day a difference is made between people, and the rates change from time to time. The railways have fixed rates which are the same for all. Those rates are published and may not be departed from. In Clause 11, as hon. members will see, the existing services are protected. We adopt the recommendation of the committee on motor competition that all existing services must continue operating for six months, and thereafter the board will go into the matter and withdraw the licences of the most recent services which, in the opinion of the board, are not required. In Clause 12 (b) it is laid down that if in a definite area there are sufficient services, then the new services will be agreed to. This is an important power, but it is necessary. Clause 16 deals with the giving of security by private motor services. It is of importance, so that the public shall be properly protected when use is made of such motor services. I want to say a few words about Clause 17. This refers to the responsibility for taxes on motor vehicles belonging to the state. It is a matter of the very greatest importance about which I should like to have the views of hon. members. The state is exempted from all taxation in connection with its services. Those who say that this is unfair I want to remind that the state, and, in this case, the railways render very great services to all classes of the community. Free services are rendered. I do not want unfairly to exercise influence in this, but I want to remind hon. members that they can travel gratis at the cost of the railways. I take this as a typical instance. A Minister and an ex-Minister can travel free for the rest of their lives. Important services are rendered to the general taxpayer, to the state and to the provinces, and therefore it is not so out of the way for the state not to pay taxes on its vehicles. On the other hand, it is true that the railways enjoy free services, inasmuch as they pay no customs dues. Hon. members will, therefore, see that in Clause 17 the position is continued that the state does not impose upon itself the taxes which are levied on other bodies. Hon. members will agree that it would be undesirable to make the state pay taxes. We do not know, e.g., what the provinces may do from time to time if the state admits liability for the taxes imposed by those bodies then we are departing from an important principle, and it may have serious results. I would rather not have had Clause 17 (b). The railways start motor services to develop parts of the country, and if such services are to be taxed in future by the provinces, then higher rates will have to be charged, because those services do not make a profit, but in many cases are run at a loss. In those places where private services will not start, the railways establish motor services. I need not detain the House any longer. In conclusion I want to say that I have seriously considered whether this Bill ought to be referred to a select committee. What I want to emphasize is that we are not concerned with a party measure here, but with one which we must treat as a national one. Our railways belong to our people, and all parties are equally interested in them. To-day it is one party that has to look after them, in future it will probably be another party. Hon. members will, therefore, possibly agree with me that we ought to consider this Bill from a national point of view.

What about Clause 20 (2)?

That gives the power to make regulations.

(b).

It speaks for itself. We need not now go into all, the details. If there is a select committee, then the committee can go into it. I am dealing with general principles. I seriously considered whether it would not be better to first have the principle of the Bill adopted by getting the second reading passed. I think it would be just as well for the House to pass the principle, so that the select committee can know what the feeling of the House is in connection with the principles at the bottom of the measure. Hon. members opposite, however, have made strong representations to me to send the Bill to a select committee before the second reading. As I see that the matter is of the highest importance, I would like to meet my hon. friends opposite, and I will agree that the order for the second reading shall be discharged, but I should like to say in connection with it, and I hope that hon. members opposite will meet me in the matter. The first is that under no circumstances will more evidence be taken, because we have all the evidence at our disposal. I hope that hon. members will not insist that we should take further evidence, because if we are going to examine further witnesses, then the position becomes absolutely impossible. The commission on road motor competition travelled about the whole country, and for more than eight months heard witnesses, so that, in my opinion, it is unnecessary to call for any more evidence. The second condition is that the select committee shall report within a definite time to the House because, if we do not provide for this, then they may possibly be talking for more than a month about the Bill. All the evidence is available, and the select committee can, therefore, deliberate on the Bill in a short time. I hope that hon. members will regard the motion to discharge from the same standpoint in which it is made, viz., that the select committee will not consider the Bill from a starting standpoint, but from a broad national standpoint, and shall report not later than the 15th of May. I hope the Bill can yet be passed this session, and therefore, with the permission of the House, I move, as an unopposed motion, that the order for the second reading be discharged, and a special select committee of the House be appointed to investigate and report with instructions that the report shall be brought in on or before the 15th of May next.

seconded the motion.

We have listened this afternoon to a characteristic speech by the Minister of Railways and Harbours. With a certain amount of what he has said, I think we can agree, but I am afraid we must differ from a great deal of what he has said. It is unfortunately the case that the Minister never faces a loss in his department without concluding that he must meet that loss by an increased tariff. It never occurs to him that expenses might be reduced. If we on this side of the House had any doubts as to the wisdom of placing such great powers as the Minister asks for in this Bill, in the Minister’s hands, these doubts are fortified a hundredfold after listening to his viewpoint on this important question of road motor transport. I would like to preface my remarks by making it abundantly clear that the South African party approves of the principle of regulation in regard to road motor transport, and that we agree with a good deal of what the Minister has said in that regard. I think we recognize to-day that many of the motor transport carriers are in a specially favoured position in relation to the railways. We realize that the railways have do face a great deal of unfair competition. We also realize that the motor carriers are not in most cases bearing their fair share of the cost of upkeep of roads, or possibly their fair share of the taxation of the country. They are also taking the best paying traffic, and leaving other traffic to the railways. For these reasons we are willing, if the Minister is willing to co-operate with us fairly, to go a long way in the direction indicated by the Road Motor Competition Commission. We are not, however, prepared to follow the lead of the Minister in the Bill he has presented to this House. To accept this Bill as it stands would in effect put every motor carrier off the road. A great deal has been said with regard to the railways being state-owned, and it is said that because we have this great asset, the capital value of which is £143,000,000, the Minister has told us this asset must be preserved at all costs. It may surprise the Minister to know that the view of some of us is that because this asset is state-owned we can afford to look at the question of motor transport development with complete impartiality. If the railways were privately owned, we might hesitate to do anything involving losses, but if any losses are incurred now these losses will be borne by the whole of the country, and surely we can face these losses without difficulty. No hardship will be done. There will be no harshness in it. Because the railways are state-owned, the capital investment can be written down to any extent, if necessary, and we can face the question of more modern transport with greater equanimity than we could if the railways were not owned by the state. We have heard a great deal about the taxpayer building the railway. The taxpayer also built the roads, and it is for the taxpayer to decide whether railways or roads shall be used to transport his goods. He uses roads only because it pays him better to do so. If, as a result of that, we have to write off £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 on branch lines, let us do so, but do not let us go on bolstering up a system of transportation which has outlived its usefulness. We have heard of municipalities which have faced competition with their tramways from motor omnibuses, but it was never suggested that the buses should be put off the roads because the trams were already there. The Minister talks about the only alternative being to write off the cost of the railways— to write off £140,000,000. I say, do not let us lose our sense of proportion. At the very worst, it is only a very small proportion of our railway assets which may have to be written off. Let us also face this that on this side of the House we are not entirely satisfied that the railways are run in the most satisfactory way possible in order to meet competition. Are they wise in sinking millions of pounds in railway workshops when they can get their requirements from the industrialists in South Africa at a much cheaper rate? Are they wise in paying l¼d. per unit for electric current when the gold mines pay only ¾d.? Are they justified in conducting somewhat extravagant experiments in the matter of employment, about which they never give this House any information?

We are only asking for a fair deal.

You are not, you propose to abolish your competitors. I am going to deal with that question in a few minutes. The Minister will not give us the assurance that he will run his railways in a businesslike way. If he were to do that, motor competition would not be frightening him.

Will you explain why, in all civilized countries, the railway systems are asking for protection?

I am not proposing to deal with the question as it is dealt with in other countries. I am only concerned with our own country. I do not say South Africa only, but certainly South Africa first. If we base our methods on our own conclusions, that will be more effective than if we attempt to make a hotch-potch of what other people have done. I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the commission—

With every word of that we agree, but the Bill before us proposes to stop the very development which this commission states is so very important, not only to the country as a whole, but to the producers of our raw materials and primary products. Not long ago I read in the press a statement by the Minister that whoever supported motor transport proved himself to be an enemy of the farmer. That is a strange doctrine, but perhaps not so strange from the Minister of Railways. He probably believes that everybody who supports motor transport is, of necessity, an enemy of the farmer. If the Minister, or anyone else comes and assures my farming friends that we shall get better service by eliminating competition, I ask them to give that doctrine no credence. If the Minister does that he is ignorant of the most elementary facts of practical economics. No community in this country stands to gain more by the development of existing and by the creation of new market’s than farmers. No community would suffer more, if this House does anything whatever to retard that development, than the farmers, and nothing will retard it more than denying to the country the cheapest and most effective method of transportation to and from those markets. We have also heard that millions are invested in the railways. Let me also say that millions are invested in roads, and that millions are invested in motor-carrying services in the country. Tens of thousands of souls are dependent, directly and indirectly, upon the motor transportation trade. For that reason we are anxious that this Bill should have the most careful consideration of the House before any final decision is taken. It is extremely unfortunate that the Minister should bring the Bill before the House when we have only 20 more working days in front of us.

How do you know that?

I am prepared to accept what the Prime Minister has said.

I hope you are right.

In 1911 Sir William Hoy called the attention of the Railway Administration to the fact that the Railway Administration would need to take notice of motor competition. That was nearly 20 years ago. Now the present Minister is determined that a problem which has been before the railways for 20 years must be solved by this House in 20 days.

In 10 days.

Yes, it has got to be solved in 10 days, before the 15th of this month. Surely this problem is not so urgent as all that. What has been before the railways for so many years can surely wait another month or two. I hope that the Minister will see his way to change his mind on the matter. The Bill is full of difficulties. It is certain that there will be storms of public protest raised against it. The hon. Minister may have his serried ranks behind him to support this Bill, but this party has the great body of public opinion behind it when it resists the passage of the Bill in this form. I hope that the Minister will give us adequate time for consideration. This undue haste has all the appearance of an attempt to try to rush the House into the acceptance of something which, if the House and the country had time to consider, they would never dream of accepting. An hon. friend points out that the Bill was only published last Monday. The Minister, in his remarks, was at some pains to explain why he was not dealing with the other sections of the Road Commission’s report. I am glad to have that explanation, because I had come to the conclusion that the Minister was quite satisfied that if he got this Bill through the House there would be no question of worrying any further about the development of road transport, or of road policy, for there would be no motor transport to worry about. Motor-buses and motor-lorries could become a prohibited import into this country, to all intents and purposes. Our roads will rank like the Roman roads, as being nothing more or less than historical curiosities. I would like, briefly, to look at some of the provisions of this Bill. It is interesting to remember that this Bill is supposed to be based upon the commission’s report, the first principle of which the commission has addressed in the following pregnant sentence—

This is a Bill to control some form of motor transport. It is not to regulate it. It is to provide a measure of control as complete as it is possible to conceive. If this Bill goes through, we shall hand over the whole of the transport of this country, lock, stock and barrel, to the tender mercies of the Minister of Railways and Harbours. Clause 1 I need not deal with, as it deals with the question of interpretations. Clause 2 is the essence of the Bill—

On page 26 of the commission’s report, paragraph 95, the commission express their view as to how this board should be formed. They say—

I repeat that there should be a road transportation board independent in character, representative of diverse interests and free from political control. The Minister’s method of arriving at that is to appoint three whole-time members of the board himself. They will consist of fully-paid men, presumably men whose livelihood, to some extent, may depend upon how they carry out the wishes of the Government and anticipate their wishes. In those circumstances, they cannot, in any sense, be independent in character. There is no pretence at representing diverse interests. I am not going to suggest what sort of board the Minister should have. That is a matter upon which the Minister should take evidence. The Minister says that we have all the evidence we want to start a board like this.

You have the chairman and two members. They are men of commonsense, as you are.

What I have read out, to the effect that this board shall be free from political control, is subscribed to by all members of the commission. They suggest a board consisting of not less than three and not more than five, but they still say that it should be representative of diverse interests and free from political control. This clause is a very important part of the Bill. I should like to say this: that I recognize the difficulties of the Minister.

I, personally, am not prepared to say that we should allow various outside bodies to appoint members to a board of this kind. I recognize that Parliament cannot divest itself of it’s power in this direction. I do, however, suggest that the select committee should go carefully into this matter and take evidence, because I am satisfied that there is still a middle way. We need not necessarily accept a paid board of three members to be appointed by the Government. I recognize the difficulties, and would like to have a better board. A very important declaration is made in Clause 2,sub-section (3)—

As regards Clause 3, one would have thought that as the local boards have to work under the Road Transportation Board, the latter would appoint them, but the Minister himself is going to do that. So the final say rests with the Minister.

There are three bodies.

Clause 4 (nomination of members of local boards) and Clause 5 (functions of board) may be dealt with in committee, but I am satisfied that a great deal of opposition will be made by public authorities with regard to Clause 4. Clause 6 (particulars of motor carrier certificates) is a very important clause, and means a great deal more than appears on the surface, especially when it is remembered that later on in the Bill it is made an offence to run motor transport without a certificate. Clause 6 lays down the conditions under which certificates are to be issued, and it is stipulated that among other details the certificate shall specify “the class of motor-carrier transportation in respect whereof” the certificate is issued. Presumably that means that if a vehicle is certified for the conveyance of goods it cannot carry passengers and vice versa. Subsection (d) states that the certificate shall apply to a specified vehicle, so if I have a certified motor-bus and it breaks down, although I may have a dozen other buses, unless they are certified for the particular route traversed by the ’bus which has broken down, I cannot use one of them to replace the damaged vehicle. Again, assuming that there is an outbreak at Worcester and Government hires buses, say, from the Cape Town Tramway Company for the conveyance of police to the scene of the disturbance, the tramway company will run the risk of being fined £100 for running buses over uncertified routes. Power is also given to lay down the routes on which transportation shall be carried on. Hence, if a farmer lives 300 yards off a transport route, he will have to have his goods off-loaded by the side of the road, as it will not be possible for the motor carriers to vary the route of their vehicles in any way without incurring the risk of being fined £100. We are going to turn motor carriers into glorified trains, as they will not be able to vary their route by a single yard. Again, a motor carrier may be put out of business by being required to run his service at certain times of the day or night. The Minister again asserts himself in Clause 7 (proclamation of transportation areas and routes). The clause reads—

The Motor Transportation Committee deals with this subject on page 27 of its report.

The senior law adviser has framed the clause in this way, but I am prepared to meet you as regards the wording.

With regard to Clause 8, I notice the rich man’s motor-car is not being touched; it is only the poor people of this country who will be pushed into the railways willy nilly. The clause means much more than that. Very heavy restrictions are placed on the motor trade, and if the Minister declares the Reef a transportation area, he has only to persuade his self-appointed board that the railways provide sufficient transportation there, then it would mean that no one in Johannesburg could deliver anything out of, into, or through, Johannesburg by motor-lorry. If the road from Johannesburg to Pretoria were made a transportation route it would not only be impossible for anybody to go from Johannesburg to Pretoria, but also to Pietersburg or the north unless they could find another way round. If the Minister satisfies his self-appointed board that the Simonstown railway is sufficient to deal with the needs of the public—and if any railway does meet with the needs of the public, it is the Simonstown railway—then to meet motor-bus competition, he must also include in the areas about one mile on either side of the railway, then no motor transportation can go into, out of or through that area. Under this we will get back very much to the old position of the English canal system. It will be within the recollection of most members of Parliament that when the railways began really to feel the competition of the canals, they were able to stop farmers sending goods by canal by buying up key points and thus paralyze the whole canal service. The Minister will be able to do the same under this Bill by having a few key points declared as transportation areas, and by permitting his self-appointed board to prohibit traffic he will be able to paralyze motor transport throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. Clause 9 is unimportant. Clause 10 is rather interesting. If you carry anything by motor-lorry you shall be presumed to be an offender under this Act. If a firm delivers some of their own goods in their own motor-lorry, they are liable to be held up by a policeman and called upon to show their certificate. If it cannot be produced they must be presumed guilty. Clause 11 is very important, and I notice the Minister was pleased about it. We are opposed to creating any other monopolies—any private monopolies—and this clause is going to entrench any motor-car owner so long as his motor service is not in excess of the requirements. He is going to have a monopoly, no matter how trade develops.

That is in terms of the report of the commission.

We take only what is good out of the commission’s report; what is bad we reject. We are not bound to all of its provisions. We cannot accept the position that we are going to prevent newcomers in the field of transport. The fact that a man was there in February, 1930, is no reason why he should be kept there for the rest of time, and why no other people, if they are prepared to give a better service, should not be allowed to come in. That is why we should consider this clause very carefully. In sub-section 2 (a) of Clause 12 we notice that in determining whether an applicant for a motor-lorry certificate is considered satisfactory, the suitability of the applicant must be taken into consideration, and whether he is in a position to cope with further expansion of traffic. I do not know what is meant by “suitability”—whether it means he is in a position to pay for running repairs or not. It is so obviously a wide expression that we cannot allow it in the Bill [Time limit extended.] I thank the Minister for his courtesy. The suitability of the candidate is an extremely difficult thing to decide, and we must have some more information. Who on earth will ever be able to tell whether he is in a position to cope with future expansion of traffic? Can you say that in five years’ time he will have to use ten buses instead of two, and whether the applicant has enough money in the bank for that? As to adversely affecting transportation, if there are any transportation facilities at all, I cannot understand any other applicant coming along without its affecting existing transportation. Under subsection (3) it is laid down that whenever any transportation facilities in existence within any area or over any route are, in the opinion of the board, satisfactory and sufficient, the board shall not grant any motor carrier certificate in respect of any motor carrier transportation within substantially the same area. That is to say that where the board is satisfied that the motor transport facilities are sufficient, no certificate shall be granted for any motor transportation of any kind whatever within that area. If the Minister sees a friend applying for a certificate, he can say: “We are not going to oppose this application,” but if he sees somebody applying whom he does not want to have a certificate, he can at once order his board to say that the transportation facilities are satisfactory, and that no further transport can be allowed. We accept Clauses 15 and 16, but Clause 17 is a very important one, and the Minister will have very serious criticism to face in regard to it. Although the Minister is anxious for a fair deal, his idea is for private motor owners to pay all the imposts any municipality may lay upon them, but, as far as he himself is concerned, the position is different, and he may pay such sum of money as he may think fit in respect of any motor vehicle used by the Administration. Under Clause 20, the Governor-General may make regulations with regard to the dimensions, design and structure particulars of various classes of vehicles used in motor carrier transportation. Under this provision it will be possible for the Minister to describe certain definite makes of motor vehicles, the colour they shall be painted, the thickness of cross-sections of the chassis, and every motor vehicle user can be compelled to use a particular type of vehicle, regardless of whether the particular class of traffic he may deal with may require such a class of vehicle. I would like to make one suggestion, and that is that the Minister might consider amending the short title of the Bin by deleting the figure nine and putting in the figure eight. I think this Bill, if it passes, might well be described as the Motor Carrier Transportation Act, 1830. This Bill is one which will affect every industrial, trading and agricultural interest in the country, and I appeal to the Minister not to press the measure through the House. In order to give the Minister an opportunity of reconsidering the matter, I would like to move, as an amendment—

In seconding the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) I feel quite confident that members on this side of the House, and that the people of the country, desire that this Bill should come before the House after going to select committee, and that the time for bringing it before the House should not be restricted to the 15th of this month as proposed by the Minister. This Bill has been introduced to meet the competition which the railways have to face, and it is a measure which in many ways I think the country has been expecting on account of the recommendations of the commission, but I think the Bill laid before the House by the Minister is of a very different type to that which the people of the country have been expecting. After reading the evidence and the commission’s report, it is clear that one of the most important recommendations they have made is that the board which it is proposed shall control transportation should be an impartial board, and one outside political interference. In my opinion, the whole essence of the Bill, and the question of the desirability of the measure depends on the question as to who is going to be represented on the board of control. The effect of the board of control, as suggested in this Bill, will be that the transportation of this country will be in the hands of the Minister. I think we are all agreed on the question of competition, and we are prepared to meet the Minister in any manner which is feasible, but we are not prepared to hand over to the Minister carte blanche such powers as laid down in Clause I of the Bill. I would like to read out clauses from this report which I consider in many ways form the essence of the control of this transportation question. In Clause 84—

I take it that it was in view of this clause of the commission’s report that the first recommendation was made—

The most important point in this recommendation is that it “should be free from political control, independent in character, and representative of diverse interests”; and yet we have, in this Bill a clause to form a body which in no way has any resemblance to this recommendation of the commission. In this report there is no recommendation as to the constitution of the regulatory body, but later we find it mentions the powers and functions to be conferred on the national road board. In section 198 (e) we find—

Although we can hardly expect the Government to accept appointments made by the various interests concerned in this country, I do think that the Government could itself make such appointments to the board which would then safeguard interests just as greatly concerned in this matter as the Railway Administration itself. And I feel that the Government should give us some indication as to their intentions in the matter. However, the two other commissioners put forward a recommendation that there should be a board of not less than three, and not more than five members, in no way suggesting that outside interests should be represented. There two commissioners represented the Railway Administration. I feel that the Minister has seized this recommendation put forward by the representatives of his own department, and that on this peg he is going to hang his hat.

I do not know what interests you mean.

Two commissioners were representative of the Railway Administration. With regard to the appointments on the lesser boards, which the Minister proposes to constitute, I feel there should be some representation of the provincial administration thereon. We have here a very good opportunity of allowing the provincial administrations who have naturally a knowledge of local conditions, to have some say in the policy of these subsidiary bodies. There is another point brought up by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) that the regulatory body which has been formed has the power to define transportation areas, within which, into, from and through which no public transport can be permitted. If we are agreed that the regulatory body is to have this power according to this Bill this is negatived, as by clause 7 the Minister can take the power into his own hands, not the regulatory body, which would be representative of the various interests. He will have this power. In clause 7 you will find that for the purpose of this Act—

It is not so much a question of whether the regulatory body will define these areas as of the Minister proclaiming these areas in the Gazette. I do feel that the people of this country and that the members of this House should have a greater opportunity than the Minister has offered us to express our views and feelings in regard to this matter. The railway transportation of this country, as the hon. Minister himself has said, is only just beginning to feel the pinch. We are to expect a great deal more If it is to be the problem that the Minister admits it is, we should have a longer time and we should have a greater amount of evidence upon which to base our legislation in this matter. In bringing this Bill forward as it stands the Minister has asked for a good deal in the hope that he will get a little more than he deserves. I hope that he will not consider that we are not prepared to meet him in this matter, and that the country is not prepared to give him, through this House, certain powers to meet this competition. We are prepared to do that within reason. At the same time, we all expect it to be fair, and it must be entirely free from the whim of any Minister of Railways. Further, it must be representative of the diverse interests concerned and not a Bill which is opposed to the general interests of this country.

In dealing with this Bill it is quite evident that the time has arrived when we should take stock of the position of the country so far as transport is concerned. You must take the transport service of the country in its widest sense in so far as it affects the whole country. The Minister has raised a storm of objection from the motor men. If you get into a thunderstorm and you have no macintosh, it appears to be the wettest rain you have ever known. That is the Minister’s position. This competition is hurting him more than any other because he is subjected to it in its intensest form. I feel that we should look at the matter in a reasonable light. Might I say this? I feel that there was an earnest desire on the part of the Minister to arrive at some method of transport in this country when he appointed a commission to go into the whole business. It was appreciated on the part of everybody in this country that, in appointing this commission, the Minister allowed the various interests to be represented on it. It was a wise step and much appreciated by those who had the privilege of nominating a representative to put their views before the commission. I shall refer to that later on in referring to competition and the suggested board put forward by the Minister. There is one thing clear to every thinking man in this country. It is this. It is impossible for us to fake any steps whereby we shall bring trouble and possibly ruin to the Railway Administration as such. It is impossible for us to accept any other method of transport for long distances. Where you have got heavy traffic to carry goods and also passengers over long distances, this system is absolutely essential. On the other hand, we have to look at the transport available to see if it is being used to the best advantage. I want to say this, that the administration, as such, has the appreciation of every right-thinking man in the country. They have conducted thein big organization very well indeed. We have had numerous complaints thrown at the Minister from time to time, from a broken cylinder to a broken tea cup, but in a big organization such as this, I think the administration can congratulate themselves on the efficient service that they have rendered to the country for many years. We were getting on very nicely so far as our railways are concerned. The trouble came the day before yesterday because a younger brother came along in the form of the motor bus, which has been cutting into the railway. It seems to me that the most reasonable way of discussing this matter and setting it upon a proper basis is to take stock of the position of the country and the transport available. There is no doubt from the producing point of view that we require the best means of transport and the cheapest method. If you look at it in that way you will agree that the only solution is to co-ordinate the two services we have available to-day, and to fit them into each other in their own spheres of action to serve the best purpose, and not merely to concentrate upon one at the expense of the other, and there must be no idea of suppression or anything of the sort. The findings of the commission extended over a wide field. I am in agreement with the Minister when he says that he thought it should be inadvisable or unnecessary to take further evidence upon the matter; because the whole country have been exercising their minds over this matter of transport for a long time. The commission went to various parts of the Union and collected a tremendous amount of information upon which they came to the kernel in the recommendations they have put forward. I quite agree in this matter that we need further investigation at the present moment, but I feel that that investigation should not be unduly prolonged, otherwise we shall leave over a matter which does require attention at the earliest possible moment. One of the matters that was discussed very largely and upon which they concentrated was the fact that we wanted some central board to organize and regulate the traffic in this country. That was decided upon almost unanimously. I should like to suggest to the Minister that, in so far as he is concerned, it was felt that there should be a bigger body and more comprehensive in its powers. In other words, that a Ministry of Transport should be brought into existence to control all methods of transport in this country, not only the railways and motor transport, but every other sort of transport. What will happen in the future is absolutely in the lap of the gods. It is not for us to worry about that either. We want to deal with the matter at our hands now —the railways and motor competition. In October, 1928, there was a large concourse of people met at Rome to discuss this very matter. There were 40 countries represented there and 350 delegates to discuss the matter. There was a resolution passed unanimously that there should be no suppression of motor transport in the various countries represented there, as no good purpose could be served by doing that. I would like to see the Minister elevated and put into a bigger field in which he could render signal service as Minister of Transportation. In that capacity, he would look at matters not only from the railway point of view, but from the angle of vision of general transportation which, of course, would include motor transportation. The railway road transport services have been of great help to the farmers and people would regret if they were hampered. On the other hand, it would not be fair if the railways hampered private enterprise in any way. At the same time, I realize that in certain areas there has been a wasteful transportation service, and if we had a body representative of the various transportation interests to coordinate all the transportation services, and allow to be continued only those which are needed, then a good many vehicles not required on the routes they now serve could be transferred to other, perhaps newer, routes where their services would be beneficially used. If the Minister accepted this suggestion I make he would be able to take a comprehensive view of the entire transportation services with an impartial mind and could use the best method of transport for each particular locality. I am sure producers would welcome such a proposal. It has also been suggested that the railway bus services should be extended. It is only natural to assume that at the same time the railways will recognize motor transport and incorporate it with the railway services. In other words, motor transport should be used as a feeder service for the railways and thus secure the cheapest and best means of transport for both farmer and merchant. It is wrong that one province should have a different scale of motor licence fee than another province. We have glaring instances in the Free State—the licence fees of which are lower than those of the other provinces—for men take out licences for their motor lorries in the Free State and run goods in Natal, in some cases nine-tenths of the mileage being covered in Natal as against one-tenth in the Free State. It is only by one centrally regulated body that the matter will be got rid of, and we will have equalization of taxes and the other conditions. While there may be differences of opinion as to some of the clauses of the Bill, the kernel of the whole thing is the personnel of the board which will regulate this work. If the Minister can assure us the board will be constituted of men with big ideas and practical knowledge, I am quite sure we will thank him for assisting us, because it is of material benefit all round.

The Minister’s having indicated he will allow this Bill to go to a select committee before the second reading, impels me not to extend any criticism to the Bill so far as its merits are concerned. I am substantially in agreement with the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock), in what he expressed this afternoon. What I rose to speak about is the proposal of the Minister that this Bill should be referred to a select committee, which is to report on the 15th of this month, and not to take evidence. I have never heard, if I may be permitted to say so, any more preposterous proposal put before the House than one like this. The Minister just before the recess stated that he proposed to move the first reading and to introduce the Bill so that hon. members might have an opportunity of studying its contents during the recess. As a matter of fact, the Bill was placed on the Table of the House only last Monday, and I have received communications, one from the executive of the provincial council of Natal and one from the Municipality of Durban, expressing the greatest possible consternation that no opportunity will be given them to place their views before a committee of this House. A rumour went round that the Minister proposed to send the Bill to a select committee, only after its second reading. I cannot think the Minister is serious with regard to this matter. An hon. member behind me says, it was unnecessary to go into the inquiry again. The evidence need not traverse the same ground as that before the commission, but surely the provincial executives are entitled to place their views before the select committee. Not only is transport allocated to the provincial councils, but the executives of the various provincial councils have been busy, I understand, for a period investigating this very problem, and framing legislation on the subject. The provincial executives want to have an opportunity of expressing, not to the Minister but to the select committee, their views on this very important measure, and even supposing that the taking of this evidence involves extending the date for the committee’s report, or even if it means that the committee cannot report this session, I think the matter is far too important to be dealt with so quickly as is proposed. This committee cannot be set up much before Wednesday of this week. That means that the committee will have just a week to consider this important matter, and report upon it. I want to appeal to the Minister not only to allow an opportunity for the provincial executives to state their case before the committee, but also to allow the municipalities to do so. It is quite impossible for these bodies to place their views before the select committee if the Minister is going to be obdurate as to the limitation of time. I can quite understand the desire of the Minister to get this Bill passed at the earliest possible moment, but surely as a reasonable man, he must realize that in order to do so he must either extend the session, and give an ample opportunity to people affected to give evidence, or he must let the measure stand over until next year. I think the House should hesitate to grant the Minister the power he is asking for, namely, to refer this matter to a select committee to consider all this important evidence, and to report within a week. The proposal is preposterous. It means that the whole matter will be shelved. There is no time for consideration, and the Bill will come back in the same form as that in which it has been introduced. I could have understood the Minister fighting for the principle that the board should be under his control, but having been so sweetly reasonable, and having allowed the measure to go to select committee, I appeal to him not to make a farce of it, because if the measure goes to select committee, and if the committee reports on the 15th of this month, no opportunity will be given to these bodies to represent their case.

I want to express my appreciation of the Minister’s intention to send this Bill to a select committee before the second reading. I am sure the Minister has no idea of the alarm caused in the country by this Bill. We have advised the Minister in a measure for the past six years that his methods of rating and the differentiation in railway rates would one day cause him serious trouble. That time has come, and I would like the Minister to reflect as to what is the cause of all this motor transport service. It is the policy of the department that has caused the problem.

Is that also the cause of motor competition in Great Britain?

There are principles which apply just as much in running a railway as a business of any kind. If you are not fair to your patrons, if you overcharge the people, your sins will find you out, and they are finding the Minister out. We have told the Minister by deputation from the Chambers of Commerce and Industries that his methods of rating and the whole position of the railways is entirely unsound. We have pleaded with him to do away with preferential railway rates, but all to no purpose. We have endeavoured to point out publicly and privately that railways to-day are loaded with charges which they are unable to bear. As I have stated before, when you get such charges as the cost of white labour policy reflected in your railway rates and also the losses on your branch lines, irrespective of whether the Railway Board have approved of them or not, so long will rates be high, and an injustice will be done to all railway users. It has been put to the Minister before that these two factors reflect tremendously on the rates. In your long distance traffic the rail charges are higher to-day than your peak war rate. The hon. Minister must admit that that is the position. Is it not an extraordinary position to exist? That applies to No. 1 rate right through. It is not Johannesburg only. It is Bloemfontein and Kimberley and all the other big centres as well. The cause of this motor transport is that here is an opportunity to do a certain amount of profitable business because the railway rates are too high. Just as surely as those rates are maintained at a very high level so surely will they be the part of the administration’s revenue that will be attacked. There is no attempt by the road motor competition to take away from the department any of the moderate-rated traffic; no attempt at all. The hon. Minister will agree with me that it is the short distance high-rate traffic, and it is only a matter of time when they will attack the long-distance traffic because of its high rates. Evidence has been seen of that during the past few weeks. Just as we are to-day meeting this road motor competition by this Bill, just as surely as we are meeting the short distance high-rate traffic, so, in the course of a few months, we shall be meeting the long distance traffic from our coast ports to the various inland centres. I repeat, that there is no other reason, no other cause, but that rates have been maintained at high peak rates and, consequently, the railway department is not competing. Here is an invitation given for the motor road transport to come in and do the business. The effect of the road motor transport—I do not say it with any desire to be joyful over it—but I think the effect of the road motor transport is being salutory upon the Minister and his department. Before I come to the Bill, I just want to notice the hon. Minister’s kindly reference to the two reports which we have had on which the Bill was supposed to be largely founded. The Road Motor Commission, the hon. Minister describes as a wonderful work. I have the greatest possible regard to the individual members on that commission. I consider that their report is an excellent one. There I agree with the Minister. I consider that the solution that they have brought about is probably just as good as could have been suggested. What I want to say to the hon. Minister when he raised this commission, is, why does he depart entirely from their recommendations? He praises the commission and tells us that it has presented a wonderful report and yet when he comes to the Bill he appoints an entirely different board, in entirely different circumstances from that which the board recommended. I believe that those who have studied the report will find it is almost acceptable to the country as a fair solution of the position. But the Bill is entirely new. It has nothing to do with the report.

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