as chairman, brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

Report to be considered in Committee of the Whole House on 23rd May.

as chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on Question of Privilege.

Report to be printed and considered to-morrow.

Under the principal Act persons are allowed to take on apprentices for six months as probationers, and not to employ them longer without their being apprenticed. An abuse was that they took on a boy for say 5½ months, and then took him on again. We cured that in the select committee by saying that a boy shall not be employed for more than six months, or for a period which, added to any other period, exceeded six months without the leave of the inspector. I was pressed to make it shorter, but three months is rather too short. The four months give both the boy and the employer full time to discover whether on the boy’s side he likes that trade, and give the employer the opportunity to discover whether the boy is suitable. He has another two months in which, without the leave of the inspector, he can take other employment, the accumulation not to be more than six months unless authorized by the inspector.

I welcome that amendment. I want to have that period abolished. The Minister will remember that in years gone by there was no such thing as a probationary period for apprentices in other countries. I was apprenticed myself, and you started as an apprentice. I still think that it is most desirable to have no probationary period at all, because it always reacts against the lad, and in favour of the employer. Even now, with the 3½ or four months, it is in favour of the employer. If there are two such periods they cut very much into a lad’s career. I hope, in time to come, we shall have an opportunity of amending the Act again, if the Minister has had an opportunity of seeing how it works, and that there will be no probationary period at all. The lad’s indentures can be cancelled if he shows a lack of ability to absorb the necessary knowledge, and that can be done with the consent of his parents. Under the circumstances, one must not only accept, but be pleased to accept, the amendment introduced by the Senate.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment in Clause 8 put and agreed to.

With the embarrassing ten minutes, rule in force I am afraid I shall have to take several bites at the cherry. First I would like to point out to the Minister the advisability of our going back to our old system in regard to committee reports. Up to 1927 these reports were considered by Parliament, and Parliament passed definite resolutions in regard to committee findings. That is not done now, and I feel that much of the time we are giving to the work upstairs is wasted, because we only get replies from the railway board with regard to resolutions, and these do not differ materially from what the officials have told us in evidence. It is very unsatisfactory. No one is bound and Parliament is ignored. Formerly Parliament dealt with, considered and adopted or rejected the several resolutions passed by the committee, but since 1927 the House has had no say. Then I wish to bring to the Minister’s attention the matter of road motor services. We have a railway open mileage of a little over 11,600, and the motor route mileage amounts to 11,300. The motor route mileage is increasing annually, and the increase is very great. Last year it was 2,337 miles, and as we go along the annual increase will be greater. Before long therefore the greater part of the Government’s transport in this country will be by means of motor transport.

The motor route services should be considered under the proper heading.

This is a matter of policy, and the only place where we can discuss it is under the Minister’s vote. I was saying that the increase in the motor route mileage is very great, and that before long we shall have most of the transport done by road motor services. The position will be therefore that if you want a new railway line the matter will have to be fully discussed by Parliament, but the Minister can establish whatever road motor services he likes. Parliament to-day has no say and gradually the whole transportation system, except perhaps in the least important part thereof, will be controlled solely by the Minister without any parliamentary sanction. I think the time has arrived when the Minister should year by year bring his programme before Parliament, so as to enable us to discuss the matter, and say whether in our opinion the programme should be proceeded with or not. On the budget debate I mentioned that we should get an explanation of the figures given in regard to civilized labour. I worked out the figures from the estimates, and found that while civilized labour increased by 157, natives increased by 2,400, and mixed labour, natives, coloured and Indians, by 480. The report of the railway board has now come out, and I find that the proportion was practically the same in 1929. There they give a proportionate increase of civilized labour, 155, and native labour 2,388. The figures there are in the exact proportion of the figures I found in the estimates. The Minister has not given us information with regard to these figures. I think he ought to tell us now whether his policy still remains what it was before, or whether he is going to replace the wastage of civilized labour by native labour. Then there is the question of efficiency in the service. I find they have 6 inspectors in Cape Town, and yet when they wish to arrange for a fresh schedule of departures on the suburban line, and this I understand is done annually, they have to call in the assistance of another man. I understand that this man who is called in is one of the signalmen. He has had long experience, 29 years’ service, I believe, And the only reason why he is not appointed as an inspector is that he is not bilingual. We all support, as far as possible, that these employees should be bilingual, but I do say that in a technical matter, where a man never comes into touch with the public, where he has deserved promotion and done good work, and proved that he is efficient in every possible way, and where he is called in in his own time to give assistance to the higher pain men, I think it is very unfair that he should be refused promotion simply because he is not bilingual.

He is an inspector.

No, he is not an inspector. There is another matter which is exercising the minds of employees to a very great extent, and that is the circular issued by the general manager on the 1st of March last. The position, I am told, is that there are two sets of regulations, one consisting of 600 pages, and one consisting of 300 pages. There are now further regulations issued. These men have no objection to complying with these regulations and they as a matter of fact recognise it as their duty so to comply, but what they do object to is that the general manager requires them to sign a document that they will be bound by these regulations, and that these regulations will form a part of their contract of employment. They say, and say rightly, that they are employed in terms of the Act, or they have sufficiently long service to come under the Act, and they object to sign a document like that which may be interpreted to change their contract of service. Some of them who have objected have been told that their signature is required, and that they imperil their position if they refuse to sign. You either have the right and the power to deal with them under your Act, which I think you have, or they are not bound, and you have no power to bind them now, by requiring them to sign what practically amounts to a new contract of service. These men feel the position very keenly. They have asked me to take the matter up on their behalf. They have made representations, and have been told that the request of the department has to be complied with. Every foreman under General Appendix No. 2, is bound to see that every man signs this document, and it then forms part and parcel of his conditions of service under the railway administration.

I should also like to put a question, but one in connection with a very happy step which the Minister and the railway board took a little while ago. I, however, would like to have a little information in this connection. According to a report in the press the Minister decided to appoint a board of control for the officers in the railway service, and we also got that report in other ways. The officials also consider it as a very happy measure. Up to the present there have always been complaints and grievances among a section of the railway men, about the way in which their affairs, as officials, are dealt with. As I understand, the board of control will act more or less in the same way as the Public Service Commission, with the difference that, while the Public Service Commission stands outside of the ordinary official career, the body in the railways will be selected by the Minister from officers in the railway service itself, which is a very sensible step, as we are entitled to expect that the people are well acquainted with the interests and needs of their fellow officials. I also understand that the extent of the work of that board of control is fairly comprehensive, and I believe that there are more or less 18 points in connection with which they can make recommendations, especially in connection with salaries, grades, powers, capacity of officials, etc., all things which concern the daily life of the officials. I also want to congratulate the Minister and the railway board on behalf of the officials. There is, however, one point in this connection to which I wish to call attention. I referred to the weekly notice issued by the general manager under the impression that one would, in the first place, find an official notice of the appointment of the board there, because the officials, as far as I know, have not yet received any official notification. Now I should also like, also on behalf of the officials I think, to ask how it is they have not yet received the official intimation. A short time ago, during my visit to Pretoria, a number of officials came to see me and I then told them what I had heard. They were very glad, but had yet heard nothing about it, and some of them heard about it from me for the first time. Why has no official notice been given yet? Another point that I want to bring to the Minister’s notice is in connection with the road motor services. I have noticed that the railways use very good buses, and I am glad of it. Now the firm that supplied them got all details from the railways of their experiences with them here. By virtue of the experience of the railways the firm has improved its lorries and I think that that firm has spent a sum of about £500,000 on such buses. I want, however, to ask whether it is fair that the firm, who has to thank the railway administration for the improvements, should offer its motors to private undertakings that compete with the railways. They are special improvements for South African purposes, and the private companies that compete with the railways are using the improvements. With regard to the officials, I want to add that, during my short visit to Pretoria, I found that there were certain grievances among the officials which, as far as I can ascertain, to a great extent, arise out of political agitation. I do not think the position can be called sound. There are 60,000 European labourers, and 40,000 coloured and natives on the railways, with 10,000 political votes. In consequence of economic development, the State has intervened in connection with industrial measures, e.g., in the case of railways, and a warped relation, which was never intended, has arisen in the growth of our political and State institutions. The position has become such that the subordinates in consequence of their vote were practically, to a certain extent, the master of their masters. If I am not wrong, that is the origin of many of the difficulties that we have to-day. I admit that it will be difficult to solve the difficulty unless we make a great change in the present electoral system. It is, however, an absurdity in the public service which has led to political abuse among the railway men. I am certain of it. It also applies to Nationalists, and I do not only blame the Opposition. There have certainly also been Nationalists who have told officials that the Nationalist party can do more for them than the South African party. I think, however, that my party colleagues have never made serious abuse of the position, or will do so, and therefore I hope that I can also appeal to the Opposition not to abuse the railway vote. If every member acts wisely many of the grievances which are merely artificial will disappear. In the meantime I think that the appointment of the board of control will have a very reassuring effect.

I want to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister the question of rates on milk. Milk which is transported by rail is generally used for beverage purposes, and will stand a heavy rate because it is sold at about 1s 6d. per gallon in the towns. The rate charged is three farthings for the first 25 miles and one penny farthing for 50 miles, with similar increases for every additional 25 miles. All milk supplied to cheese factories, etc., is usually carted by road and not by rail. Now that the Nestle’s Condensed Milk (S.A.) have started in three centres in the Union, a large amount of milk is being supplied for manufacturing purposes at a price of 8d. per gallon in summer and 10d. per gallon in winter. Tenpence is for a small supply, owing to severe conditions in winter, therefore you can base your calculations on 8d. To charge the same rates on that milk which is worth 8d. and milk which is worth 18d. is a great tax upon the farming community. A very large amount of that mile comes from over 50 miles. Most of it probably comes from within 25 to 50 miles. Suppliers are actually paying 1½d. per gallon railage for that distance. For railways to take anything from 1d. to 1½d. for milk which is worth only 8d. is out of all proportion. You can carry 10 pounds of milk plus two pounds for the tin, which is four pounds on the backward and forward journey, or a total of 14 pounds, some 76 miles and you take 1¾d. for it. That milk is worth 8d. You carry mealies of the value of 3s. 9d. and of the weight of 50 pounds for the same price. In effect you can rail five times the quantity of mealies for the same price. Is that fair? Why mulct the dairy farmers of this country five times the amount of the charges paid by the mealie farmers to carry their mealies When you apply to the department they say they cannot give any redress and that they do not think it is sound to discriminate between milk for manufacturing purposes and for beverage purposes. The two things are different altogether. If the Minister cannot make a differential rate he should carry the whole lot at a reduced rate. We have to pay five times the rate on our product that the mealie farmer has. Milk is one of the highest rated of agricultural products. In these times, when milk is one of the only payable products, it is not fair to penalise the dairy farmer as against the producer of other agricultural commodities. I hope the Minister will look into this in the light of the information I have given him, and see that some relief is afforded to the dairy farmers.

Hon. members have doubtless seen the general manager’s bulletin No. 1400 of the 28th April last and I should like to draw attention to page 620 in regard to the tariff rate referred to by the general manager of the New Zealand Railway. I ask the Minister what steps he intends taking under this paragraph? It states—

Some people use the railways in order to get the cheaper rate, but they do not go to the railways with articles which fall under the higher rate. What steps—if any—are the railways taking in regard to the matter. The commercial community should be informed on the matter. Then there is Item No. 2314 in regard to “the despatch of consignment notes before tendering the goods to the railway.” I understand that people send off duplicate consignment notes of goods proposed to be sent by the railways. This puts the railways to a great deal of trouble as to whether the goods have been received by the railways or not. That custom might be stopped if the information was passed round to consignors. It should be pretty clearly brought to their notice. I have listened to the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost). I understand he said there were many complaints amongst the railway men in regard to some points which I did not catch. I understood him to suggest that if these matters were put right, the Nationalist party would get the railway vote. Am I right? [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. member will tell us in English what he means, I constantly hear of complaints too, but I shall not advocate that they shall be redressed merely in order that the South African party shall get their vote. If the complaints are enquired into and justified then they should be remedied.

A short time ago the hon. Minister suggested to me that it might be necessary to consider the question of pulling-up the Cape Flats line. There is a strong rumour in Cape Town that the Minister, or the railway board, is actually considering the matter. I should like to ask the Minister if he will give the House some indication as to what his views are on the matter. I can hardly credit the rumour, because the Cape Flats line is serving Cape Town and the hinterland of Cape Town, the suburban areas, where possibly within the next 40 years there may be half-a-million inhabitants. I cannot understand anybody who has a hold on the transport in that area giving it up at any price whatever. It is such a valuable asset to hold that I am certain no private railway company would ever release such a very fine asset. To-day, only one side of False Bay is inhabited to any great extent. That is the side from Muizenberg to Simonstown. There is every indication that within a short period, so far as the railways are concerned, there will be a big population living along False Bay as far as Strandfontein. The railways practically have the chance of a reasonable monopoly of that traffic. The land between the present Cape Flats line and Strandfontein, to a very considerable extent, is Government land and it is the natural route for transport to take from a point somewhere in the neighbourhood of Bamboesvlei to Strandfontein and thence to Muizenberg. Whatever the temporary position of the railway is to-day, it seems to me a very great sacrifice on our part to lose an asset which in 20 or 30 years’ time may be a most valuable asset. As the traffic on the suburban line from Cape Town to Diep River increases, there will be all the more necessity to send expresses by some alternative route, so as not to hold up traffic to the nearer suburbs. If the Minister pulls up the Cape Flats line, the possibility of sending the expresses by this relief route is removed, and the Minister will not have an alternative line with which to supplement the suburban line. I cannot think that the Minister seriously considers taking up the Cape Flats line. If it does not pay, the only thing to do is to cut down the expenses, until the line becomes a paying proposition. Unfortunately the line was constructed without a direct connection with Salt River, thus preventing it being so much used as it otherwise would be, but the railway department has the land across which that connection could be built. I agree that the monetary position of the railways gives grave cause for anxiety, but do not let us in a panic do things which, 20 years hence, will make our successors wonder at our shortsightedness and stupidity.

I would like to make a request to the Minister of Railways in connection with a matter of great importance to the wheat farmers in the Transvaal. Last year a deputation of millers and wheat farmers of the Transvaal went to the Minister to see him about the maximum rates for the millers in the Cape. That maximum rate not only places the millers, but also the wheat farmers of the Transvaal, in a very bad position. The millers of the Cape Province are at present dumping flour in the Transvaal at prices at which they get flour in the Cape. Not only that, but the millers further, when they get flour from Durban to Johannesburg or Pretoria, and then send it, e.g., to Pietersburg, pay more for it than the Cape millers who send their flour. In other words, they are placed in a worse position, and this reacts on the wheat farmer of the Transvaal, because the millers say that they cannot pay any higher price because the Cape millers are dumping their flour. The Transvaal millers get their wheat from Durban, and pay about 2s. 2d. freight, and to send their flour to Pietersburg they have to pay 1s. 10d., while the Cape millers can send their flour cheaper. I am especially wanting to point out how this injures the Transvaal millers, because there is a movement on foot in the Transvaal to establish a co-operative mill, but if we are to do so under those circumstances it would be a hopeless matter. The Board of Trade and Industries also sent in its report on the matter that it thinks that the maximum rate is an extraordinary favouring of the Cape miller. That board also recommends that that tariff should be revised, and, therefore, so it is the wish of the wheat farmers in the Transvaal. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to another question, viz., the rate on wool from the Transvaal to Durban. It seems as if the railways make a difference whether wool is carried on a branch line or a main line. When a farmer, e.g., wants to transport a small quantity of wool, say, 70 lbs. from Lydenburg to Durban, he would probably get about £1 6s. for his wool. He has to pay 10s. to the railways, as well as commission, etc. which costs a few shillings more, and he eventually gets about half the price for his wool. As the price of wool is so low, it is time that the Minister revised the wool rates.

I wish to refer to the marshalling yard Masons Hill at Pietermaritzburg. On the sabbath day, when the shunter goes off duty, the policeman also leaves work, so that the yard remains unpoliced. The yard is situated between a sort of district 6 of the town and a huge native location. When natives find that a valuable lot of goods in the yard is not policed, they very soon pilfer as the goods are in open trucks. Recently, since the Minister has answered my question, at midday on a Sunday one of the offices was burgled. The running staff, who have complained of this, fear that when any pilfering is taking place it is not known until the goods reach their destination, and the blame is cast on them, so they are very much concerned because this yard is not properly policed. I hope this is the last time I will have to draw the Minister’s attention to it. Then I want to ask the Minister why the Government have changed their policy, and are replacing civilized labour by natives. Civilized labourers who were acting as handy men have been removed from such stations as Nottingham Road, Mooi River, Balgowan, Rosetta and others. I put a question to the Minister about this, and his reply was there was no accommodation, no housing. That is a mistake. There is proper housing there, with electric light, and why should the Minister say there is none? These men were under very favourable conditions; they are regarded with friendship by the farmers who offer them vegetables and various other commodities. As a rule farmers are large-hearted and give freely to their brothers who are in unfortunate circumstances. These men could get milk, fruit and vegetables free and gratis, but were removed to Pietermaritzburg, where they have to pay rent. It is a great hardship for them to be removed and is this a change of policy. I want to raise another point, under Head 5, with regard to the maize farmers, on whose behalf I make an appeal for the amelioration of their conditions.

What do you mean by amelioration?

If the hon. member cannot understand what that is I will say “some assistance.” I hope the Minister will give a final answer with regard to giving these farmers some relief. The position is most unfortunate, and the present market prices are falling. We are not going to have this position every year. With the cut price it means that for delivery at the seaboard they will get 7s. 3d. a muid; the shipper will require a profit, and the average is 2s. 6d. a ton, but it has been lower than that. Some have shipped on a basis of 1s. 6d. a ton, and the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Buirski) can bear me out on that. This is a big national question, and the Government must face it. Other Governments have given relief to their maize farming industries. If the cost of production is 6s. 4d. a muid on the average, can they keep on their feet? Many of the farmers say maize is not worth growing. The Government can give assistance, and there can be some relief with regard to the flat rate. Then, as to the freight charges by the Union-Castle Company, how is it the Argentine can get their maize shipped at 10s. a ton? [Time limit.]

I should like to bring a proposal to the notice of the Minister in connection with the appeal board of the railway men. At present there is such a reduplication of channels of appeal that great dissatisfaction is caused in the service. I want to make a suggestion, and I would very much like to know from the Minister whether it will not be possible to make the matter easier both for the workers and the railway department. In the case of a railway man being punished he can go to the appeal board, the appeal board sits on the case, but if he was punished by the system manager then the district manager need not submit himself to the judgment of the appeal board. He can notify the railway man that he will not submit to the judgment of the appeal board, and the man can then note an appeal to the general manager, and ultimately to the railway board, if he thinks that he has not yet received justice. If the general manager upholds the decision of the system manager then the worker can go to the railway board, as I have said. It is not that I think that the general manager and the railway board will not hear the case fairly, or Will give a prejudiced judgment, but after a worker has once been to the general manager, then he is so sick and tired of the matter that he does not go further and note an appeal to the railway board. I want to propose that if the Appeal board upsets the decision of the system manager, in other words, if the appeal of the workman is upheld, then the onus must be placed on the system manager to take up the matter further with the general manager, or the railway board if he wishes. That will do away with an appeal through all these channels, which is very burdensome and troublesome to people who have to work hard, and who are possibly tired of working overtime. The person also sometimes feels that he is spoiling his own case and prospects if he proceeds with an appeal. He thinks possibly that he will make himself unpopular with the system manager or the general manager, if he appeals to the railway board after they have already convicted him. It is very undesirable for the system manager to be able to say that he will take no notice of the judgment of the appeal board. Such a tiling does not exist in our courts. If a person’s appeal succeeds, then it is for the opposite party to appeal to a higher court. He cannot say that he will take no notice of the appeal, and throw the onus on the other person to take the appeal further. This is an unnatural state of affairs on the railways, in my opinion. I do not want to make matters more difficult for the department, but if these hints can be adopted then we shall reduce the dissatisfaction on the railways. I have here the case of a person who was fined £3. The appeal board upheld his appeal, the person, however, received notice from the system manager that he would not recognize the judgment of the appeal board, and the fine therefore stands. He then appealed to the general manager, but the general manager upheld the view of the system manager. The person then asked to be retrenched under a regulation for the reduction of staff, which was refused. What is the use of the appeal board in such circumstances? Is it merely a shadow for the railway workers to stand in when the sun is too strong. We must have a permanent appeal board. This person did not appeal through the appeal board, he had got too tired of the numbers of channels and disheartened because the only body where the worker is represented has been overridden by decisions of subordinates, inasmuch as the appeal board as such ought surely to be superior, and he is now one of the dissatisfied. As a proof that he is innocent we may mention that the alteration in respect of which he was punished has since been effected. I appeal to the Minister, and I hope that he will not only give me a reply but will seriously consider the matter. If he does not consider my proposal practicable then he must do something else to satisfy the people, but I say that this is the only practical alteration which can be made. It is asked here why the railway men are dissatisfied. These various methods of appeal are one of the things that cause dissatisfaction.

In introducing the Railway and Harbour Estimates on the 27th March, I understood the Minister, when referring to the extension of the break-water at Algoa Bay, to say that this work would be delayed when the length reached 3,990 feet. I must point out to him that if this be done there will be a howl of indignation from the Midlands and the people of the large area of the Union who make use of Algoa Bay as their port of entry and exit. I refer more particularly to the southern Free State, western Transvaal and Griqualand West and South-west Africa. After many years of enquiry and numerous commissions, and reports by recognized reputable engineers. Parliament approved in 1914 of the construction of a south break-water at an estimated cost of £1,500,000, and of that amount £50,000 was voted for that financial year. The total length of the break-water was to be 8,500 feet, to be completed in 10 years. The first block was placed in position in 1922, and slow progress has been made ever since. May I say to the Minister that at least 6,000 feet will be necessary to protect the existing north jetty, on which passengers and cargo are landed and shipped. The van der Horst Commission of 1925, after exhaustive enquiry, recommended that a commencement be made on the larger scheme from the north, but that has not yet been approved by Parliament. The position at present is dangerous when the south-easter is blowing. The trade at the port has increased beyond expectation, and it is absolutely essential that adequate protection and facilities be provided for the present trade, and for further expansion. Even in its present condition the break-water has proved of great advantage to lighters and small craft, which can now be safely anchored in the worst weather under the protection afforded; but we must have, and I respectfully say we reasonably demand, deep water berths for ocean-going ships. This is assured if the full length of the break-water, as passed by Parliament, be completed. Quite apart from the enormous tonnage of wool, mohair, hides and skins, motor cars, timber and general merchandise handled, the fruit trade, particularly in citrus, has developed marvellously, and there will be an enormous increase in the near future. Thousands of deciduous trees have been planted in the Long Kloof, and citrus in the Gamtoos Valley, Sunday’s River Valley, Uitenhage, Kirkwood, Amanzi, Elands River, Van Staadens and in the Albany district. We cannot be condemned to being a lighterage port for ever. May I appeal to the Minister to consider our position? Of course we have done very good work, and I fear very much that because of that good work it is expected that we should continue under adverse conditions. The present jetties are by no means improving in condition, and they will have to be replaced in a very short time unless protected. Neither Algoa Bay nor—if I may say so—East London have received fair treatment in the past. The big ports, Cape Town and Durban may deserve the attention they have received, but after all we have only five ports in the Union, and it is essential for the development of our import and export trade that our harbours should be fully developed. I want to read an extract from the van der Horst report, page 32. Members of that commission were by no means favourably impressed when they went down there but were convinced by the overwhelming evidence given. This is what the report says—

Further on it says—

This was in 1925, and the trade has expanded very much since then. Algoa Bay brings in over £150,000 a year, over and above expenditure. I also want to bring this to the Minister’s notice the indifferent conditions under which we travel in the midland and eastern division compared with the comfortable conditions obtaining elsewhere. We are used to getting the worst carriages and engines breaking down. On the Garden route which is very much advertised, the service is now going to be reduced to a luncheon car only three times a week. I ask the Minister why? Is it because it does not pay? I think we are entitled to better treatment than this. Surely passenger traffic cannot increase unless better provision be made. Then trains often arrive late. [Time limit].

A good deal has been said by a number of members about the rates charged. I want to say a word about the rates paid. I am concerned about the humans on the railways and the rates paid to that human material. The Minister euphoniously describes these people as “civilised labour.” I have often heard members of this side of the House ask what about the replacing of civilised labour by natives. How does the Minister arrive at that word "civilised”? Are they civilised before they come to work on the railways, or does the Minister arrogate the right to himself to say that he is the civilising influence on them after they come to work on the railways? I want to ask on which aspect of the question the Minister takes his stand. Does he insinuate or maintain that the rates of wages he pays to these so-called civilised men are an inducement to them to become civilised? If so, I at once say to him he is having quite the reverse effect to a civilising one on these men. Magistrates —wherever in the provinces there is a poll tax —automatically write out exemptions for railway employees who are regarded as unskilled employees—though civilised—from the payment of poll tax on the ground—and there is only one ground of exemption—that the man cannot afford to pay. In short, on the ground that he is a pauper. In order to get exemption from poll tax you have to satisfy him that you are a pauper. In their case it is quite sufficient form them to say “I am an unskilled labourer on the railways—I am a civilised labourer in the employ of a State department”—and the magistrate grants exemption. A few weeks ago I met some men who are at work on the railways—and I hope the Minister will not concern himself so much with the freight to Lydenburg—and all of them, with variations, in the main had the same tale to tell. Let me give one specimen tale. “I am in receipt of 6s. 9d. a day.”

That is top grade.

I am taking the top grade because I think it is the best way to expose the whole thing. “I have a wife and eight children.” I suppose that is a terrible thing—he has no right to take upon himself the responsibilities of endeavouring— not succeeding—to make a home for a family like that. “I have to pay £3 10s. rent.” From the point of view of the House which is charged with the responsibility for seeing to the welfare of the people, and more particularly the welfare of the employees of the State, this should be interesting. Now if he gets 6s. 9d. a day—I hope, Mr. Speaker, if I overstep my time you will omit looking at the clock—he gets £8 15s. 6d. a month from a paternal government. If I make a mistake I hope the Minister will correct me. There are such tremendous sums involved. After paying rent he has £5 5s. 6d. left. Now a family of eight children might reasonably be supposed to require at least three loaves of bread a day. When I come to enquire how much there loaves of bread will cost—for although he is only paid for 26 days a month, he has to live for 30 days, unless during the remaining four days he has to go into a state of suspended animation—that costs him £2 12s. 6d. and leaves him with £2 13s. Now you cannot get meat under 1s. a pound. I suppose the Minister considers he ought to subsist upon scraps, but I contend he has as much right to meat at 1s. per pound as the hon. Minister has or I have. Yes, I demand that. If I allow him, or if the Minister, in his kind-heartedness, allows him, only 1 lb. a day for the whole of those ten persons, himself, his wife and eight children, you have absorbed another £1 10s., and you are left with £1 3s. I am credibly informed by people who have examined the position, that it is essential for children, at all events, to have at least 2 pints of milk a day. You cannot get milk under 3d. per pint. I think, if I gave these children, or the Minister, in his kindheartedness gives these eight children of this unfortunate railway employee, two pints of milk a day, that will absorb £6 10s. out of the £1 3s. left to him! I suppose he has to depend upon the charity of others to clothe these unfortunate children, to put hoots upon their feet, get tea and coffee and sugar, and, I assume, the almost inevitable mealie meal. When we come to get right down to bed-rock in regard to the family budget of this top-grade labourer on the South African railways, this 6s. 9d. man, we find this man, his wife and eight children have to subsist upon mealie pap, and not upon milk or bread or meat or tea and coffee, but upon mealie pap three times a day, perhaps, if they can get it three times a day. That is the South African railways civilised labour policy. [Interruption.] Don’t laugh. Let us draw a contrast. I do not begrudge the hon. the Minister for one moment his £2,500 a year, but on the one hand you have the spectacle of the Minister superintending the running of the railways more or less successfully, getting £2,500 a year, and on this scale of wages of 6s. 9d. a day paid to the labourer, he could keep 32 families.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

So has the Minister’s.

Perhaps I may be allowed to express to the hon. the Minister the satisfaction of East London at getting the first instalment of some matters that were long overdue. Certainly their anxiety has been relieved a good deal. I express gratitude to the Minister on the start he has made with certain necessary works. Gratitude has been described as a lively sense of favours to come. I hope the Minister, having made a start, will continue with some other very necessary matters connected with the East London harbour. I think he will agree that a railway station which was built in the sixties deserves renewing at this stage, more especially as a new station with the necessary offices for the administrative staff will prove a real economy in the future. I think now that this naturally favoured seaside resort is going ahead, it will be an additional necessity to East London to see that other arrangements are made for dealing with existing and expected traffic. Perhaps when the Minister is replying, he will give us some indication of the policy of the administration with regard to the extension of the line from Chiselhurst to the harbour. In the old days there was a railway line existing, but it has now been taken up, but the rails and equipment could be replaced at a very small cost now. With the increased harbour facilities now in course of being provided, there will be greater traffic, and again this will probably be an economic proposition, so that goods can be sent direct up country from the ship’s side, without intermediate handling, or transmission into other vehicles. These are matters to which I ask the Minister to give his attention. I say we are very grateful for the present instalment, but I hope the Minister will consider it is only ab instalment, and when he finds such favourable economic results from them, he will be encouraged to go on with others.

What the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has referred to is certainly very important. The hon. member has, of course, merely made out that the people always had that way, and as if they never before received less. But the matter is hackneyed, and we ought not to have to go into that argument again. What, however, in connection with the expenditure of railway men I want to bring to the Minister’s notice is the great expense they have in consequence of the terrible scarcity of houses. That shortage is certainly not the fault of the present administration, because during previous years, and also during this year a great deal of house building has been done. Yet there is still a shortage, and many railway workers are obliged to hire houses, which as the hon. member for Benoni has shown, swallows up a large part of their income. It would possibly be advisable to institute an enquiry whether in many cases there is not oppression of the railway men by the landlords. I think, however, that the railway administration itself also is a little to blame. If we look into it we shall find that the rent of the older class of houses is also too high.

The rent is fixed in accordance with the wages, and it is never more than one-sixth of the wages.

Even if it is one-sixth, it is still too high in the case of some of the old houses. It is desirable that it should be gone into whether the rent of certain old houses is not really too high. The hon. member for Benoni said that the tariff from Lydenburg was a matter of less importance. It is, however, also of importance, especially for the small man that we want to keep on the land. Therefore the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. de Souza) spoke on behalf of the small farmer, to the effect that the so-called part tariff system should be altered. The small farmer cannot understand when he lives on a branch line, and is nearer to Durban than the man who lives on the main line, still having to pay more than the latter, I want again to point out to the Minister that it is necessary that the facilities should be made equal. There is yet another matter that I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, and it is in connection once more with the great shortage of houses for railway men. There is a great shortage, but when railway men are transferred account must be taken of cases where a saving in houses is possible. There are cases where sons and their fathers are in railway employ, and such a son ought to be transferred as rarely as possible. Take an example in my constituency of a son of a railway man who was transferred from Waterval Boven to Witbank. If that is done then the son will have to find another house at Witbank, while at Waterval Boven both could have lived under one roof. Another matter which leads to many grievances is the transfer of married railway men, when they are transferred to places where there are no railway houses. Take the case of Waterval Boven, where no private houses are available, then such a man has, possibly, to live in an expensive hotel, or boarding house, and the great grievance is that he is faced with the choice of accepting the transfer or of losing his promotion. That is not fair, and a married railway man should have a chance of going to a place where he can hire a private house at a reason able price, or where railway houses are available. Now I only want to add a word in connection with the regulations referred to by the hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts). I want to suggest that the administration should prepare a pamphlet which will make it clear to the simple railway man in what way, and through what channel, he can reach the higher officials, and the railway board. Many of the people are ignorant, and such a pamphlet will greatly assist in enabling the railwaymen to have their imaginary or real grievances investigated. I also wish that the higher officials could be instructed to reply quicker, because railwaymen at present have to wait too long for an answer. It sometimes takes months before a matter is further gone into. Then there is another thing that I want to discuss and that is the admission of boys as apprentices in the workshops of the railways. I have had a few cases where boys who just happened to be over eighteen years, and who had been to the technical school and wanted to go into the workshops are not admitted because they are eighteen years old.

The limit is 18½ years.

Even if it is 18½ years, it is still wrong. With our school system, especially on the countryside, it may easily happen that a boy reaches eighteen years before he is finished with his schooling.

You are right, it is 18 years.

Very well, but even if it were 18½ years when a boy has finished with school, then he must not be excluded because he is 18 years. It is exactly the same objection as exists in connection with the appointment of persons over 45 years by the Department of Forests. When a boy has taken the trouble of going to a technical school, and his father has possibly spent a lot of money then he finds that he cannot be admitted because he happens to have already attained the age of 18 years. It is an undesirable state of affairs.

I want the Minister to give us some information about the policy of the administration with regard to the mechanical department. I notice in the Capital and Betterment Estimates, that very little is to be spent on the improvement of our workshops; in fact, with the exception of £50,000 allocated to Bloemfontein nearly all the money to be disbursed this year was voted by Parliament last session. As the Minister knows at some of our workshop centres the buildings and facilities are obsolete; at other workshops there is not sufficient shelter, and in some places portions of the work have to be performed in the open. This may be all right in fine weather, but during bad weather it is impossible, and consequently the employees have to go home, which means a distinct hardship to them and an inevitable loss to the department. If we take the centre I have the honour to represent, all the engineering side of the workshop is obsolete, and in want of re-organization. This is urgent and has been strongly recommended by the officials and we understood that the Minister was going to commence that re-organization this year by providing money for a new erecting shop. I am very sorry to say, however, that we have been disappointed and this does not appear in the estimates. It would appear as if the Minister has taken some very bad advice which was recently offered to him, namely, the curtailing of all capital expenditure on workshops, and the purchasing of his requirements instead of manufacturing them. There is another rather alarming feature, which is revealed in the estimates, and that is that the amount of money spent on the wages of artisans and apprentices is steadily decreasing year by year. In the present estimates, we see that the vote for this particular item is £41,629 less than the previous year, while last year the vote was £67,732 below that of the year before. In other words, in two years there has been a decrease of over £100,000 in the amount paid in wages to artisans and apprentices. Surely there must be something wrong in this regard. We are gradually increasing the number of engines, carriages and trucks; we do more train mileage, and convey more passengers and goods, yet the staff to deal with our rolling stock is gradually becoming smaller and smaller. It is the more remarkable when we know that we are short in some trades of competent mechanics, and at the present time are advertising for them. I have a notice which appeared in the Rand Daily Mail only a few weeks ago, which reads as follows—

This is an extraordinary position when we know that railwaymen all over the country are clamouring for employment for their sons in the railway service as apprentices. The apprentices in the railway service, I will say, are well looked after, and they require no interference by any outside body. To-day our workshops are turning out some of the finest mechanics in South Africa. My only objection in this regard is we train too few. I hope the Minister when he replies will make clear that he has not abandoned the policy of manufacturing in his workshops all his requirements that can be made there. There is another question with which I want to deal, and that is the type of rolling stork being put into the passenger services at the present time. I hope the Minister will not think this is a hardy annual of mine, but I am bringing this up because I want our railways to be what they should be, that is, second to none in the world. This case came to my personal notice, and I want to give the Minister the full particulars. Recently I travelled from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth via the Garden route. Shortly after leaving Cape Town one of the lavatories had to be locked up because it was not in working order. Next day the water supply in the saloon failed. During the journey I got into conversation with one of the leading business men of Cape Town, who told me he frequently visited Port Elizabeth, but always went by steamer; but hearing such a lot about the Garden route he decided on this occasion to go by train, and added that never again would be patronize the railways on this route, because “last night the vermin nearly carried me out of my compartment.” Surely with systematic fumigation and inspection this could be avoided. This clearly proves, as I have shown before, that in regard to railway affairs it is the little things that matter. Whilst we are all very proud of our trains-de-luxe with their articulated and observation coaches, where the steward presses your clothes, blacks your boots and curls your hair, if necessary; it does seem monstrous that on other routes first-class passengers are denied decent, clean, comfortable facilities for travelling. We should aim at giving all the travelling public value for their money, instead of concentrating on luxuries for the few. The tourist traffic is valuable and should be encouraged in every way, but I want the Minister to realize that he and his department have also a duty to perform to the great bulk of the travelling public of South Africa, who patronize our railways.

We all know that there has been a great deal of difficulty with regard to the Cape Town suburban line, and the department is faced with the problem of road transport competition. Broadly speaking, you can divide that line into two sections—the nearer one from Cape Town to Wynberg, where the competition from buses is very severe, and the section from Wynberg to Simonstown, where the main part of the people are dependent on the railway. The problem before the department, which is a very serious one, is how to maintain the railway traffic on the first section without interfering with the efficiency of that part where the people are still entirely dependent on the railway. Some months ago the department instituted a system of a 10-minute service between Cape Town and Wynberg. All of these trains stop at every station. I understand it has been in a large way successful in regaining traffic, and that it has now been extended practically speaking throughout the day. But the effect of this glorified tramway system—and this new method and policy—has been to block the whole system to any fast traffic. I want to draw attention to the drawback which this is to the public who live on the Kalk Bay side. The whole area from Diep River to Fish Hoek has grown enormously during the last 10 years, and one of the reasons why it has developed, is developing, and is bound to develop in future, is the excellent railway service. In addition to the express services during peak periods, there were regular fast trains during the day and evening, but now at one fell swoop, in order to enable the railway to compete with the bus service from Cape Town to Wynberg, we, on the Kalk Bay side, are almost deprived completely of our fast and excellent service, and, instead of being able to come into town in about half-an-hour’s time, we have to go by slow trains. If this bus traffic develops, even our business express trains may be affected. Our interests are being sacrificed on this section of the line in the warfare that is going on between the railways and the buses on the other section. What is going to be the effect of this policy? It is going to hinder development. It is deliberately creating a demand for road transport service, for which there should be no demand in that part of the town. People are not going to live down there if the service is going to get worse, as it has done during the last six months. I suggest that that is exactly the opposite policy to the one which the department should adopt. As far as the nearer suburbs are concerned, the railways are fighting a losing battle. Road competition has come, and it is going to stay. The railways will retain a certain amount of its traffic, but it can never hope to get back a lot of that which it has lost. But in the further suburbs there is no fear of bus competition, provided the railway maintain an efficient service, and the policy of the railways should be to improve the railway service. The future of the suburban line lies along the False Bay coast, by reason of its distance from Cape Town. I ask the Minister to give this matter serious consideration. There is a great deal of resentment at the present state of affairs, and the system manager is being bombarded with deputations. In spite of the fact that I appreciate his difficulties, I put it to him that he would be unwise if he did not pay attention to the development of the service in the False Bay district. I should like to ask the Minister for further information in regard to level crossings. I understand that the question of cost has now been settled. Is there any prospect of the more urgent level crossings being taken in hand?

As the Minister knows, I represent a large railway depot, and I have represented the constituency for 10 years. I do not believe that one of the hon. members has had more experience of the staff and the working of the railways than I have. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts) spoke about the grievances committee, and said that it came into conflict with the general manager. Well, of course, the general manager and the railway board and the Minister are above the grievances committee, but what I would recommend the Minister to do is the following. There are welfare officials on the railways, and when there are complaints they investigate them, but I must say that in my experience the system is not satisfactory. I have, myself, investigated many difficulties, and had hundreds of cases under consideration. According to the railway regulations, the people must go through the indicated channels, so that they finally and ultimately get to the Minister and the railway board. I have long felt that it is almost impossible to carry them out. It takes four, five, and sometimes six, months to dispose of a case in that way. It requires much correspondence, and there are many railwaymen who cannot do all the correspondence. They work daily from morning until night, and cannot possibly take all the trouble in connection with their grievances. I want to suggest that at every large railway centre a grievances committee should be appointed, and that such a committee should make enquiries and report to the railway management and the Minister with a clear statement of the grievances. I know there are many unfounded grievances, but there are also sound ones, and there is the satisfaction. The well-founded grievances must be enquired into. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) referred to white labour. It has been my view from the start that a white man never could work for that money without either himself or his children running short.

And if they have nothing?

When they have to work from early morn until late at night and then suffer hunger, what is a position like that? How is such a person to feel? We want to build up a civilized white South Africa, and if we want to do that we must see that the people get proper wages on which they can live. Can we employ people on a less wage than they can exist on? We cannot get away from it. There are people in the service who do not earn their food and their clothes.

Are natives then to be employed in their places?

Still it does not do to pay starvation wages. It is certain that the people with families cannot work for the money. We are thankful for what the Minister has done. The year before last he put aside, out of his surplus, £30,000 for the benefit of the wages of the people, and another £200,000 last year for three sections of railwaymen. I do not blame the Minister, but it is a fact that the people cannot exist on 5s. or 6s. As for their housing, I want to say that in my constituency there are many houses from the military cantonments that the railway administration bought at that time, and I say that the people are to-day paying too much rent. It is almost impossible to light a candle in them without it being blown out by the wind, and the rent is too high in proportion to the wages the people earn. I hope the Minister will also give attention to this. As for the grievances, to which I want to revert, it is in the administration’s own interest, and that of the Minister that things should be investigated. When a man is satisfied and without a grievance, he will work much better than one who goes about with a well-grounded grievance, and who feels that he is being unfairly treated. A member of this House cannot put these things right. When he has investigated one, there are 20 other grievances, and he would never get to the end of it. Let the Government appoint grievances committees at the large depôts to investigate matters, and to try and put right what is wrong. If I were to talk about all the grievances I could continue for hours, and I will therefore not do so. But there are grievances, and no one can contradict it. The Minister knows it himself. It will be advantageous to the whole administration to appoint a committee, and, if the people are satisfied, they will perform more and better work.

I want to raise once more the vexed question of local allowances, but I do not propose to deal with areas outside Natal. As the Minister knows, the only area in Natal where this privilege is enjoyed is the Durban area. A local allowance of 1s. a day is paid to railwaymen there. In the other important centres, such as Pietermaritzburg and Ladysmith, no local allowance is granted. A good deal of dissatisfaction exists in these centres in regard to the non-payment of these allowances. Railway servants in these areas maintain that the cost of living is just as high there as in Durban, and the Minister, I think, does not pretend to know personally whether this is so or not. His standpoint is that this is a matter of policy adopted as a result of the recommendations of the Graham Commission, and that the figures upon which the allowances are fixed are obtained from the Census Department. The Public Service Commission bases its finding upon figures obtained from the census office. I want to ask the Minister whether some better system cannot be devised than that of relying on figures supplied by the Census Department. There is evidently something wrong with the allocation of these local allowances, otherwise it would not be the source of dissatisfaction that it is, and there must be some grounds for the complaints which come from areas not regarded as entitled to the privilege. I do not know how often the census returns are issued, but I understood the Minister to say last year that the figures were adjusted quarterly. If this is so, upon what data are these figures adjusted, in view of the fact that the census returns only come out annually. It seems to me that there must be a good deal of guess work in connection with these local allowances. I would like to ask the Minister to tell us whether he cannot devise some system likely to be more satisfactory to the railwaymen generally. The contention in the Ladysmith area is that the cost of living there is just as high as in Durban. Then I would like information in regard to my question as to civilized labour. I asked the Minister on the 13th of May, “how many labourers have absconded during the last 12 months, and how many were dismissed from the service?” and the reply was, “372 absconded, and 253 were dismissed the service.” I want to ask the Minister whether it is the policy of the department to reinstate men who abscond, or are dismissed, or have committed acts which render them liable to criminal prosecution. I have raised this question before; I do not do so on my own initiative, but at the request of men in the railway service. The Minister’s answer to this question was: “Not where the fact of previous employment is known, unless circumstances are exceptional. The reply to the second portion of the question is in the negative.” I have a case here which I brought up early in the session. I am not going to mention the name—the case of a labourer who was given a pass to travel from Maritzburg to Ladysmith in Natal. The man in question proceeded to Ladismith in the Cape under a falsified pass, he having altered they in Ladysmith to i. The deception was detected by the ticket-examiners, and the young man reported. He was surcharged the cost of the difference between the fares. Immediately the deception was detected, he addressed a letter to the Minister reporting what he had done and asking forgiveness. I wonder if the Minister permits this sort of thing. He certainly does not permit it with the graded staff, who are told to make their representations through the proper channels. In this case, he took no exception to the action of this man in addressing him directly, and the extraordinary thing is that he told the Minister he had done this thing and gave the reason why. He said: “Please inform me whether you have received my last letter, which I wrote under stress of making the best of a bad job.” He commits a crime, writes to the Minister, and actually has the effrontery to ask the Minister, after committing the crime, to give him a better job—to give him promotion. This is the reply the Minister sent to him. It is an astonishing reply. I do not need to read the whole of the letter. A letter was signed by Mr. C. W. Hoff, the Minister’s secretary, written on the instructions of the Minister, of which the following is an extract—

The letter goes on to say—

That relates to the surcharge of the railway fare from Natal to the Cape. The letter further says—

The taxpayer has to bear the loss of this surcharge of £9 odd. Then the letter goes on—

He wrote to me after he was out of the service.

Do you re-employ men who abscond, or who commit offences which render them liable to prosecution? That was a question I put to the Minister, and I will read his reply. First of all, my question was—

The answer was—

Does the Minister say that the circumstances, in this case, are exceptional?

I will satisfy the House on that point.

I put the same question in regard to those who commit acts which render them liable to criminal prosecution. Now the Minister takes refuge behind the fact that these are exceptional circumstances. May I ask what set of circumstances would warrant the Minister in refusing to employ a man if the facts disclosed are not a bar. If the commission of a criminal offence is not sufficient justification for refusing re-employment, on what ground would the Minister refuse. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) referred to the railwaymen getting low wages, and if we deduct what they spend on bread and meat and milk, then they have about £2 a month left. The most important point which the hon. member forgot is that if the railways had not employed those 16,000 workers, then they would have had absolutely nothing, and then there would have been 16,000 people with their families without the necessities of life. He ought rather to thank the Minister that he has assisted the people. I want, however, to bring to the notice of the Minister the railway from Cape Town to Simonstown. I think there is a loss of about £200,000 a year on this line, and I also understand that the railway board have already expressed the opinion that this line will have to be broken up if no improvement takes place. I want to urge the Minister to scrap the line.

Move it.

It is very necessary to do so, and if the Minister were to give notice that he intended doing so after six months if the position did not improve, then the public would be able to consider whether they could use the railway or whether they were going to make use of the motors. If they want to use the motors, then let them use them, and let the Minister break up the line, and save the money, or use it in some other way in the country. I would very much like the Minister to consider the erection of a grain elevator at Boon. That is a maize area, and the elevator has already been promised for two years. I want to point out to the Minister that about 150,000 bags of maize will be consigned from that station this year. There is an elevator at Koster, but the capacity of it is only 8,000 bags. The maize production in those parts will be about 200,000 bags this year. From Mafeking to Koster the distance is about 150 miles, and all the maize is sent away from there. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to assist us.

Some time ago I asked the Minister a question, and sought some information regarding what is called the fast mail from Johannesburg to Port Elizabeth. Hon. members will know that there are two trains daily, one through the Free State and the other via Kimberley to Port Elizabeth. I pointed out that the trains require acceleration in order to keep in line with advances and improvements on the other main lines in the country. I pointed out that it takes longer to go * from Johannesburg to Port Elizabeth than from Johannesburg to Cape Town. I also pointed out that the services required attending to. I received the usual courteous reply from the hon. Minister. I have information that nothing further has been done. I understand that the state of the mail train, the fast train from Johannesburg to Port Elizabeth, is precisely as it was, and there has been no improvement whatever. The hon. Minister will probably remember the information I gave him, and I am sure, if it is looked into, he will cause an investigation to be made, and it will probably be improved. I want to say something more in reference to the Port Elizabeth harbour, not in a general way, but in regard to delays which are taking place there in the completion of the south arm, for which money has been provided since 1914. I understood from the hon. Minister in his budget reference that after 800 feet had been completed, bringing the south arm to somewhere about 4,000 feet, the work would be suspended for a time, at any rate. I pointed out that in 1914, I think it was, £1,500,000 was passed in this House for this work. Up to the present only just about half of the work has been completed, that is 4,000 feet. I am not speaking now of a subsequent report in 1925, which recommended completion of the north arm, and which would have placed the harbour at Port Elizabeth in a satisfactory position. One can understand this portion of the harbour development being left over for the time being. With the development taking place in Port Elizabeth, particularly in the hinterland, one is at an entire loss to know why there should be this decision to stop the extension of this work at this stage. In the report in 1925, there is a most striking reference. It was pointed out—

That is to say that 2,000,000 boxes are equivalent to 118,000 harbour tons. It is necessary that the citrus growers should be able to take their fruit to the mailboat, and not by lighter. That is one of the great essentials in connection with this industry. The report says—

It has been pointed out to me that in no part of the country are extensions in citrus fruit growing greater than they are in the Port Elizabeth hinterland. If that is so, one would ask the Minister at least to give the House a reason for the delay, and the assurance that this great expansion of fruit-growing will not receive such a setback as it would if the Government’s policy of curtailing the work is carried out. Far better to increase harbour accommodation to enable us to carry away this enormous quantity of fruit than to put the money into extending railway workshops. The farmers have received a shock at the very suggestion of discontinuing the Algoa Bay harbour extension, when half completed. The total estimated cost—£3,700,000—of the work is certainly a considerable sum, but the completion of the south arm alone would do all that is necessary to give the necessary facilities for the export of fruit via Port Elizabeth. I hope the Minister will assure us that the south arm will be proceeded with until completion without any undue delay.

During the general budget debate I had no opportunity to bring a few matters to the notice of the Minister, and I would like to do so. I have been asked by the public of Kroonstad to convey their hearty thinks to the Minister for having complied with a long felt need, viz., the magnificent railway bridge which has now been completed, and also the concession to our young people by which the playgrounds of the railway institute are being put in order, and for which there is a sum of £1,790 on the estimates. The voter is just like any other person, and he is jealous of his rights. The electors from time to time want to hear what their representative has said, and how he has defended their interests. We are here concerned with one of the largest organizations in the country, an organization which requires the strongest discipline, which employs no less than 100,000 people, and in which no less than £161,000,000 of the public’s money was invested. I know that the Minister welcomes any constructive criticism, but I am not going to criticize him this afternoon, but merely to bring certain matters to his notice which demand more serious consideration. There are always grievances in an organization like that, and even if the Minister possessed the faith of an Abraham, the strength of a Samson, the wisdom of a Solomon, and the heart of a David, there would always be grievances. We are not only concerned with the 14,000 people that he has taken into the service, but also with the 40,000 Europeans who have been rescued from beggary. Then there are many young men whom the Minister has employed and given the advantage of courses to fit them for the service of the country. Those boys have had few chances in the past. They were sons of poor people, healthy, willing and with high aspirations, but they did not get the opportunity of proving it. They have been unable, owing to poverty, to go beyond Standard VI on the countryside. There are, however, still parts of the country to-day where the Minister and the railway board cannot see the position, and there are numbers of Afrikaans boys who are not being properly treated in comparison with the English boys. There are cases where some of our Afrikaans boys are handed over to the mercy of officials who adopt an attitude as if they did not care a hoot of what becomes of our great national question. You find some of them who adopt an attitude of want of sympathy towards the Afrikaner boys, and the officials are mostly of one class. They are unlingual, and do not realize that they are not here to please a political party, but are officials of a great national undertaking. It seems to me that they are still imbued with the old imperialistic spirit of racial contempt, and to apply it wherever they have a chance. It pains us to listen to the complaints of our workers about those people. Between Cape Town and Kroonstad I could bring very many cases to your notice. It seems to me that these people still suffer from a superiority complex. We must get rid of that spirit which is so destructive in our national life. We must get rid of the backstairs policy to give English boys the preference over Afrikaans-speaking ones wherever they get a chance. Those people think our sons are good for nothing but poor whites, relief workers, journeymen and road makers. It cannot remain like that. It is producing a revolutionary spirit in our own Afrikaner boys. It leads to hopelessness, worry, suspicion and distrust, and if an accident occurs about which the Minister and all his officials can do nothing, an accident which was unavoidable, they sit with their hands in their hair, throw up their arms, and talk about the inferiority of the Afrikaans boys, and call out: “Oh, God, this business is going to pieces, Charlie with his army of Dutch drones.” I do not believe we shall ever be able to remedy the state of affairs unless we introduce the fifty-fifty basis in the head office of the railways.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a question I put to him the other day with regard to the abatement of pension where pensioners are reemployed. When the Railway Service Act was under consideration, a promise was made that, as far as possible, the method adopted by the treasury would be adopted by the railway service, but we find in practice that is not done.

The Act says that on appointment, the amount paid shall be the emolument without regard to the annuity which may be drawn. The anomaly is that a clerk who was employed by the Public Works Department in Pretoria was retired on pension and draws the full amount of his pension, while a clerk in Cape Town, also retired on pension and re-employed in the same office, doing the same work, has his pension abated, so that whenever he gets an increment, it is taken off his pension, so he is no further forward, it bars his promotion, and it takes the heart out of him. I suggest this is not fair, and there should be the same principle in the two departments. I think the principle is accepted that the contract ends when a man retires on pension, and that he makes a fresh start in re-employment. Then there is another point, which was raised by the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). Where an official is not sufficiently bilingual, I understand the Minister made a promise to consider individual cases, where a man did not come in contact with the public. A man in the mechanical engineer’s department in Pretoria, who does not come into contact with the public, is passed over, does not get any increment, because he is not efficient in Afrikaans, and juniors who have entered the service since his appointment are passing over him.

In the staff office?

Yes. The railway board reports the satisfactory cost of building of railway coaches in the shops at Salt River and Pretoria. A number of coaches were imported from Germany, and similar coaches were constructed in Salt River and Pretoria at a cost much lower than the imported ones. The Minister knows that coaches made in this country stand the climate much better than the imported one. In the railway board’s report there is mention made of 28 suburban coaches that are to be imported, and here is a case where we might make our own, and keep the work in our own country.

The white labour policy followed by the present Government is abused by hon. members opposite for political purposes. With that object in view, the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) described the circumstances under which the white labourers live. As for their lot, I want to say at once that I agree with the hon. member when he says that those people are not able, or, at any rate, find it very difficult, to come out on their wages. But why did not the hon. member, when he was a member of the Government, make that speech? Now that he is a member of the Opposition he makes that kind of speech to try and get the support of the white labourers. The same sort of thing is being done by hon. members opposite. It is very easy to join in the talking to the press, and to represent that we are engaged in looking after the interests of the white labourers, but the test of the honesty of hon. members opposite is whether they are really prepared to pay higher wages to the white labourers. We have noticed that the speeches were made by members on the back benches, but when their proposals were voted on the leader and front benchers of the Opposition left the House. That is a clear proof that if the Opposition came into office again, they would never follow the policy of this Government, not even to speak of an increase in the wages.

The hon. member must confine himself to the vote under discussion, and not make another budget speech.

I readily admit that the white labourer who earns 5s. or 6s. a day will find it very difficult to come out, especially in the larger towns. On the countryside house rent is very low, and the people possibly get wood and water gratis. There they can, more or less, come out, but in places like Bloemfontein and Johannesburg, where people have to pay from £4 to £5 for rent, and have to buy everything they use, there it is almost impossible for them to come out. Is there anybody among us, however, who will say that because we cannot pay these people any more, we must simply dismiss them, and appoint natives in their places. I submitted this matter to a meeting of white labourers in my constituency. I asked them whether they wanted that a certain percentage of the white labourers should be retained at a higher wage, and that the place of the rest should be taken by natives. They decidedly do not want that. Therefore, the only method there remains is for us to try what we can do to improve the conditions in which these people live. Now that we have had a deficit on the railways, we cannot expect the Government to pay the people more. We must admit that. There are, however, other respects in which we can improve the lot of these people, and we must not neglect to do so. The first point I want to mention is house rent. I am told that in Pietermaritzburg and Durban houses are given to the white labourers. I am well acquainted with circumstances in Bloemfontein, and I do not know of any house that has been built there to assist this class of European workers with housing. The houses that have been built there are intended for the skilled labourers, but for the European labourers, who get from 5s. to 6s. a day, there are no houses. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible in the great towns where the people have to pay from £4 to £5 for houses, to give them a better allowance for rent. Further, I was informed a short while ago that there are thousands of sleepers that the railways are no longer using, and which they cannot sell; these sleepers are sold on fixed condition to married railwaymen, but if an unmarried railwayman wants to buy them he cannot obtain them on the same conditions. It may, however, be that such an individual has to provide for a family. He is possibly 25 years old, but still lives in his parents’ home, and why cannot he buy the sleepers on the same terms as married men? If there were a shortage of those sleepers I could understand why preference was given to the married men, but, as I have said, I have been informed that there are thousands of sleepers that cannot be sold. I ask the Minister to bear this point in mind, because, in many cases, it will greatly assist people to reduce their cost of living. I agree with the hon. member for Kroonstad (Lt.-Col. Terreblanche) in connection with the treatment that certain Afrikaans-speaking officials receive. The head officials are often unsympathetic towards the white labour policy, and consequently, they often show disfavour to these people. I have experience of it, or have had cases put before me, and some of us know that these people come to us almost daily with complaints of that kind, and to communicate their grievances to us. In this connection I want to mention a definite point. Recently there were 40 under-foremen, and, according to my information, 32 of them were unilingual English-speaking persons, only eight could speak Afrikaans. It is very clear that the scales are not being held even in this case. The argument will possibly be adduced that there are not sufficient bilingual skilled workers in the railway service, who are suitable for this position. There are two individuals in my constituency who are bilingual, and who have the necessary experience and competency. It is also said that those people can make their grievances known when they are treated unjustly, but it has to be done through the proper channel, and, as various hon. members have already shown, it will take months and months before those complaints get to the notice of the Minister and the railway board.

In view of the gravity of the financial position of the railways, which cannot be gainsaid, one naturally looks at the estimates to see what economies the Minister is going to exercise to meet the new condition and place his finances on a sound basis. I notice that the Minister proposes to save £106,000 on the maintenance of the main line. How he proposes to save that, I do not know. It is difficult for me to understand how he is going to economize to the extent of £106,000 on the main line, and yet maintain the main line in a safe running condition. A sum of £18,000 is to be saved in the wages of the locomotive drivers, and some thousands of pounds are to be saved on the wages of those who are driving the electric motors. I would like to have some idea from the Minister how both of these economies are going to be exercised without endangering the safe running of the railway. Those of us who represent railway constituencies, and who are consequently in close touch with railway service, know that there is throughout the railway service a feeling of grave dissatisfaction and unrest. The Minister can go where he likes, among the running staff, the running sheds, or in the workshops, and he will find this feeling of dissatisfaction. Now what is the cause of this dissatisfaction? It is difficult for me to put my finger on any one particular point at the moment, but the fact is, dissatisfaction does exist, and, so long as it does exist, you will have difficulty in securing that whole-hearted co-operation which is essential to the satisfactory running of the railways. I have been told that from the Minister’s point of view, a feeling of dissatisfaction among the staff is looked upon as a favourable sign. It is an indication that discipline is being exercised, and that those who perhaps are most susceptible to discipline, are feeling the pinch. Be that as it may, dissatisfaction does exist. I would like to refer to the question of the pay of the fire lighters and steam raisers, which, I understand, is in the neighbourhood, as regards some of them, from 4s. to 4s. 3d. a day. Will the Minister look into that matter, and ascertain the reason why so low a rate of wage is being paid? If that is the wage paid for that job, bearing in mind the responsibility attaching to the work, these men should then be placed on a better grade. When I last spoke, I drew attention to the fact that the railway board itself is not viewed with that enthusiasm which one would like to see permeating the railway staff as a whole, and when one looks into the work and activities of the railway board in many directions one is not altogether surprised that dissatisfaction does exist. Take one illustration. A new system has been instituted by the Minister with regard to learner students—a very good system. You will find that youths are selected as being fit candidates for engagement on the railways, and after some years’ service found suitable to enter for examination. I refer to youths who have matriculated. These youths enter for the examination provided for them by the administration, and in due course pass the examination; they receive their appointments officially and are congratulated by the department on being successful, are further told that it is only a matter of time before they will be appointed to some particular part of the system to carry on their duties as learner students, and then the railway board turns them down; turns them down, if you please, on the grounds of inadequate education. I cannot conceive of anything more unfair, if the facts are as I have stated, and I believe them correct—if, after passing examinations they are turned down by the railway board on the ground that they are not sufficiently educated, and outsiders given the jobs which should by rights have been theirs. If this kind of thing is going on, it is no wonder that the railway board does not carry the confidence of the country nor the confidence of the service. I hope the Minister will tell us why this is taking place. Cases have been quoted by the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson)—for instance, that of a man who after falsifying a pass on the railway was forgiven and told that he could again apply for a billet. [Time limit.]

I want to bring a few things to the Minister’s notice in connection with the stations in my constituency. I have often approached him about them, but I can assure him that I still have to use a soapbox to descend when I arrive at Riversdale. If some day the box breaks it will be the Minister’s fault if I have an accident. It is true that a little work is being done at the station, and that improvements are being made here and there, and I am thankful for them, but the platform remains too short. I am not a man to complain unnecessarily, but it really is necessary to lengthen the platform at Riversdale. Then again we have the Albertinia Station, it is too far away from the village. The people have to pay 3d. per 100 lbs. to have their goods taken to the station. When I tell the people to send their things by rail, they point out how the lorries fetch the things from their door, while the station is outside the village. The people are prepared to give the Government as much land as it requires for a new station in the village. It is, in any case, not a station at all, but only a tin house. The stationmaster and his wife have left because they cannot live there. When the Minister was there last time he did not promise to have a new station built, but he let it be understood that it would be first station that he would have built along the old line. I therefore hope that the Minister will see his way to have that station improved. Then at Mossel Bay, a large harbour, there is a station as if it were a Karroo village. I hope the people there will get a better station, and that they will enjoy more privileges than what they have now. Hon. members opposite object to the pay the white labourers are getting on the railways, and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) is still making the most noise. No, I just want to say this that in my district more people are going to work at that wage on the railways than from any other district, and they are satisfied to-day. If it were not that hon. members wanted to catch votes we should not hear anything about it. The people are thankful for what the Government has done, and I can assure the Minister that there are poor people who have a small piece of land who have told me how many sheep they have bought out of that wage of 6s., 8s. or 9s. Yet hon. members, in order to catch votes, say that the people should have more, and when we say they are smousing then they get angry. I hope the Minister will employ more of these people.

I was much interested to hear the last speaker reproving my attitude in making representations to the Minister of Railways in regard to railwaymen. May I suggest to the hon. member that he should allow me to continue in peace making the necessary representations to the Minister, while he returns to the alluring pursuit of the cultivation of pumpkins. I admit the duty has been becoming less and less attractive, Mr. Chairman, as I failed to catch your eye, but none the less it is a duty, and I now move—

I do this in order to discuss questions of policy, namely, the relationship between the Minister and his staff in regard to appeals, and also to appointments to the service.

The hon. member can deal with the policy of the Minister only in regard to appeals.

I think appeals will include the wider subject.

The hon. member moves to reduce the Minister’s salary by £5 in order to discuss the question of the Minister’s policy in regard to appeals.

I should like, at the outset, to congratulate the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Pretorius) on his inspiring speech which shows a complete change of spirit. When I heard him exhorting the Minister to consider the needs of the railway workers, and painting a moving picture of the discomforts under which they laboured, I could not help saying to myself “The voice is the voice of Fordsburg, but the sentiments are surely the sentiments of Salt River and the South African party.” I congratulate the hon. member on that very fine change of spirit that has come over him. I only wish that spirit had been exhibited on a previous occasion when a motion was introduced in this House by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North (Mr. Deane) and myself, which might have obtained his support, but unfortunately did not do so. Now the first question I wish to raise is one respecting the bulk of the railwaymen in this country, namely, the system of ventilating grievances. I am afraid that I cannot share the optimism of the hon. member for Pretoria District (Mr. Cost), who, to-day, in the course of his brief speech, congratulated the Minister on his administration of the railways and, apparently, seems to be under the impression that all is well with our railways at the present time. I am afraid I cannot share that optimism. Let me say, at the outset, that I have the greatest and deepest sympathy with the hon. Minister with the position in which he finds himself to-day. I quite realize that at the present time he is like a gambler, throwing the dice for the last time with the Motor Transport Bill, backed with the blandishments of the high officials in the service, in a last desperate effort to right his position.

The hon. member is not discussing a question of policy.

I express sympathy with the Minister, therefore, in his position at the present time. I should like to say, also, that I do not wish any of my criticisms to be taken as an indication that I am out of sympathy with the administrative officials of the railway service as a whole. I can assure the Minister that I have the greatest admiration for the service and for the administrative officials. My complaint is with the Minister and the policy of the present Government. The Minister has been very emphatic on various occasions when I have dealt with him, directly and indirectly, and with other hon. members who have had to deal with him, directly and indirectly, in regard to grievances, so-called or real, of members of the service. Whenever we approach the Minister and point out that an individual or a certain group is labouring under a sense of grievance, we are always told that we must follow out the usual channels. The Minister holds his hands up in horror and says, “How can you, as a member of Parliament, see me about a man, or a group of men in the service at the present time?” We are referred to regulation No. 36 or other regulations to this effect, that if a man or an individual or a group have a grievance, they must forward that grievance to their immediate superior; and if they are not satisfied with his decision they can appeal to the general manager and, ultimately, to the Railway Board. The Minister has always been emphatic to me that he is out to maintain discipline throughout the Railway Department in the Union, and he has always said that this can be done only by the men following what he calls the “usual channels.” To maintain discipline is an admirable sentiment. I back him up to the full in that, and I think that every hon. member on this side will be with me in that. If only the Minister would be consistent! If only the Minister would not allow these “exceptional cases,” which he mentioned this afternoon, to direct his conduct on occasions. It is most amazing how "exceptions” can alter the Minister’s judgment on questions of this sort. The Minister has laid down that, where questions involving grievances of men in the service are concerned, he, or his officials, cannot deal with them through members of Parliament. They must be dealt with through what he calls the “usual channels”. That has been the consistent attitude of the Minister towards those of us who have come to him on this side of the House. It is necessary to follow up the Minister’s attitude. I have here an example where the Minister has deviated a little way from that rigid course of conduct which he has led us to believe is his view of what is right. The Minister may remember, and from remarks which he has made from time to tmie in this House. Subsequently he has apparently taken affront that it happened, that sometime earlier in the session the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) moved a certain resolution in regard to railway servants. He may also remember that there was a certain amendment to that, which I moved. That motion was discussed in this House on certain days and, eventually, the House came to a certain decision. May I just digress for a moment and say that the hon. Minister has shown the utmost courtesy in remaining in this House all the afternoon while other members have left the House in order to refresh themselves. If the Minister wishes to go out and have his cup of coffee I shall be the last to accuse him of discourtesy.

Thank you, but I will listen to what you have to say.

I thank the Minister for his change of heart and spirit. After that motion, which affected the rights of railwaymen in regard to their pay and in other matters, was turned down by hon. members opposite, a mass meeting of railwaymen was held at De Aar. I have in my hand a copy of the minutes of that meeting. They are the minutes of a meeting held at the railway institute at De Aar at 8 p.m. on the 17th of February of this year. It is most interesting to read the various subjects which came under discussion that night. I may say that I was privileged to receive a copy of those minutes. I may also say that my hon. and ecclesiastical friend the hon. member for Colesberg (Dr. Lamprecht) also received a copy of these minutes. Paragraph 4 of these minutes records the following statement—

That action was not only reflected in the Star; it was reflected also in Hansard. That was the resolution passed at the meeting. I am given to understand that shortly afterwards, and, of course, it will be for the Minister and the hon. member for Colesberg (Dr. Lamprecht) to say whether my allegations are correct—and I hope that I shall have the ears of the hon. members on the Labour benches, the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) and his colleagues—

How many were present at the meeting?

Perhaps the hon. member knows something about it. I know at least two people who were present.

Like the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Col. M. S. W. du Toit).

I understand this particular meeting was a private meeting. I will, however, satisfy the curiosity of the hon. member for Germiston. The minutes of this meeting record that the meeting was called to discuss grievances at De Aar, and that the meeting being full of members at 7.5 p.m., it was suggested that the meeting should be conducted elsewhere. One may gather from the minutes, therefore, that it was a crowded and enthusiastic meeting. Now, no doubt this resolution, coming so soon after the election of the hon. member for Colesberg—

Order. I cannot see what this has got to do with the question of policy and appeals.

It has to do with the question of appeals. I am directing my argument to the principle which the hon. Minister has laid down, that all communications should be directed through certain channels, and I wish to show that he has, on occasions, made exceptions to the usual practice. Now, no doubt, as I was saying, the susceptabilities of the Minister and of the hon. member for Colesberg may have been hurt by this resolution of no-confidence at De Aar. In terms of the wording of the resolution the latter was sent a copy of it in company with the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) and myself. I understand that shortly atferwards the hon. member for Colesberg interviewed the Minister of Railways and Harbours. I may be right or wrong in that, but that is my information, and shortly thereatfer the system manager at Kimberley was instructed to attend a meeting of railwaymen at De Aar.

On a point of order, the hon. member is absolutely misinformed.

Whether I am misinformed or not, I am glad that I have been able to rouse the hon. member for Colesberg out of his usual state of lethargy. I am informed that a meeting of railwaymen was held at De Aar and that it was attended by the system manager and the hon. member for Colesberg (Dr. Lamprecht) while a local shedman took the chair. I understand that at that meeting, which was addressed by the local member, the question of railwaymen’s grievances was discussed. Now why was it necessary in this particular case to make an exception to the general and very salutary rule that when members of the service wish to ventilate their grievances they have to do so through the usual channels?

Were individual grievances discussed at this meeting?

I do not know whether they were individual grievances or grievances affecting individuals, but do not let us split hairs.

Surely you have no objection to the system manager discussing individual grievances?

In the interests of discipline it is the last thing to admit of such a contention under such circumstances.

Why not?

If for no other reason that it is not allowed to members of the S.A.P.

I am prepared to meet any member of the South African party and to give him the same facilities.

I have at least gained something by bringing this matter up.

Has it been refused to any South African party members?

The Minister seems to be a little bit worried.

No, I want a little information.

It is not for me to give the Minister information. I have time and again gone to him for information and have been told that the men must follow the usual channels. The Minister has held up his hands in holy horror and has said: “I cannot possibly deal with individual grievances unless the men make their representations through the usual channels But when you find the hon. member for Colesberg (Dr. Lamprecht), one of the very best of Nationalists, having got into the bad books of his railway constituents—and the railwaymen at De Aar hold the balance of power in the Colesberg constituency—allowed to attend a meeting to discuss grievances at which the system manager is also present, then one begins to realize that there are times when the Minister may deviate from his usual policy of telling members to advise their railway constituents to follow the usual channels. Judging by ms interjections, the Minister is showing a certain degree of disconcertment.

I only wanted to get ascertained facts.

I want to ascertain the facts from the Minister.

You are making allegations you cannot prove.

If the Minister wants proof that a meeting of railwaymen was held at De Aar and was addressed by the system manager and the hon. member for Colesberg, I can supply it.

That is not so. I did not address the meeting there. It is absolutely false.

I shall now pass on to other matters affecting the appointment of the staff, and shall, at a later stage, be happy to hear the hon. member for Colesberg (Dr. Lamprecht)—

I shall be happy to.

At the moment the hon. member looks the picture of disconcertment. I may remind the committee that a short while ago the Railway Administration adopted a new policy, of appointing what they call “transportation pupils” in the railway service, a policy which is referred to in the last report of the auditor-general, where he says, on page 83— The administration has introduced a scheme for the intensive training in transportation work of a limited number of junior officers. Officers appointed under this scheme are designated as transportation pupils, and appointments are made from matriculated servants who take the highest place in a competitive examination, and university graduates.

And then he goes on to explain the scheme. I noted, with great interest, that the scheme was also referred to in the last report of the Railways and Harbours Board on page 20, where it says—

I cannot allow all that roundabout discussion.

I shall endeavour to be more direct. They report—

Then it goes on to deal with a certain examination held last year, and says—

The committee will see from this short summary that it was a fairly exhaustive examination, embracing a wide number of subjects, and specific conditions were laid down, the fulfilment of which was a sine qua non of these appointments. The commissioners go on to say—

It is a very interesting statement, which, no doubt, the ordinary reader, glancing over his blue book, would think was one behind which nothing lay, but behind this lies a very interesting story indeed. It will be seen from the above that the conditions which the Administration laid down were that they offered appointments to nine selected pupils of the service, candidates to be between the ages of 21 and 25; they had to have passed the matriculation examination, personally to have the approval of the general manager, and to obtain a pass in this special examination set by the department. Those were the conditions as published in special notice 1792 by the Raliway Department. A certain clerk in the railway service, named Tillman, being an ambitious young man, decided to go in for the examination. He was bilingual, he bought certain books, and for nearly a year he gave up pleasures and lived laborious days studying for this examination. In course of time he went up to Johannesburg to sit for the examination, and, virtue having its own reward, he obtained a letter dated 13th November, 1929, from the system manager of the railways, in the following terms—

On the 10th January of this year, Mr. Tillman, with others, went to interview a staff board, and then, on the 27th January, there came a bombshell into the life of this young man. He received another letter as follows—

Now comes this delightful conclusion—

Imagine—

The hon. member is going far off the point.

I must read the letter to give the history of the case.

The hon. member has no right to discuss it.

I would like the committee to note the moderation of his reply, considering the humiliating position in which this young man was placed. He wrote as follows—

The hon. member must come to the point. I do not think this has anything to do with the case of appeals.

I want to deal with this case, in which I was personally concerned in appealing on behalf of Tillman. I am going to charge the Administration with a breach of faith. In discussing that, I may incidentally refer, I take it, to the fact that if the Administration does not allow a proper appeal, there has been a breach of faith.

made an interjection.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé) may have finished with me, but I have not finished with the Minister. The conclusion of the letter I was reading is in the same moderate spirit. He appealed to the general manager to reconsider the verdict which had been given, and the general manager replied that he would give the matter further consideration, and subsequently notified him, in a letter dated 28th of February, 1930, as follows—

That, then, is the position. After this young man had been led to believe that certain conditions were the conditions laid down and the only conditions for this appointment, he was turned out in this ruthless fashion by the Railway Board, of which the Minister is chairman. There was nothing in the conditions that were published, I may point out, to lead a member of the railway service to believe that if he fulfilled the conditions he would necessarily be appointed. All candidates were told was that before such an appointment could be made they would have to fulfil the conditions. But, in the case of this young man, he did fulfil the conditions, and he was informed that he would be appointed. It was only afterwards that he received this communication that the approval of the Railway Board would be necessary. Surely that was a breach of faith? Why did the Railway Board withhold their approval of the appointment, and make an exception in the case of this young man who had fulfilled all the conditions? I addressed a letter to the board, and received the following reply from the secretary of the board—

I must call the hon. member to order. There is no appeal in this case, and I prefer that the hon. member should not go on reading these letters.

I put in an appeal on his behalf. I was attempting to be in exactly the same position as the hon. member for Colesberg (Dr. Lamprecht).

The hon. member is not in order. This has nothing to do with an appeal.

The hon. member is stating a very important point. It is whether a certain applicant who applied for a certain position has not been seriously prejudiced. With all due submission, the hon. member has a perfect right to submit to the committee the correspondence which passed between the candidate and the Administration in order to make the point of the grievance clear. This is a point of grievance. I am sure that you, sir, will allow all possible latitude to hon. members to bring forward such grievances.

The hon. member moved a reduction of £5 in the Minister’s salary in order to discuss the question of the policy of appeals. In this case, it is a grievance and not an appeal.

When a complaint of grievance is alleged against the department, the Minister concerned always demands that a specific case should be quoted. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) is going with some particularity into a case of which he has full knowledge and with which he is fully acquainted. If he did not do that, he would be open to the counter-attack from the Minister that he was making charges without quoting a specific case. Surely the hon. member must be allowed to state exactly what the grievance is, and show the circumstances of the case by which he illustrates it.

In this case, there is no question of an appeal. It is a grievance which the hon. member must deal with under the 10-minute rule.

When the House adjourned I was quoting a letter from the Railway Board with regard to the non-appointment of Mr. Tillman, in which it was stated that he was eliminated from the list of candidates because he had obtained a very low percentage of marks. I was a little curious on the point of low marks, so I asked a question in the House on the subject on April 8th, and was informed by the Minister that Tillman obtained 695 markes, equal to 59.4 per cent., and that out of the 18 candidates he was third on the list. Surely that cannot be said to be a very low percentage of marks, seeing that in the matriculation examination 60 per cent. is sufficient to secure a 1st class pass. If the Minister still asserts that the reason the Railway Board turned Mr. Tillman down was on the grounds that he obtained a very low percentage of marks, then a reasonable man, knowing Mr. Tillman’s abilities, and what he did in the examination, would say that that statement is nothing more or less than a frigid and calculated mis-statement.

The hon. member must not say “calculated mis-statement”.

I did not say that it was a frigid and calculated mis-statement, but that when any reasonable man knew all the facts, he could reasonably deduce that—I did not make that statement myself.

The hon. member must not use the word “calculated”. His time has expired,

I think that we have listened this afternoon and to-night with pleasure to the hero of Salt River. The hon. member (Mr. Lawrence) has recently, by his action, become the hero of the so-called poor people on the railway. I think we have all received the photograph of the hon. member. Among the N.U.R.A.H.’s he has become known as a leader of the South African party. I think they call him the pseudo-leader. I do not know whether he is actually a leader of the hopeless ones. The hon. member reminded me this afternoon of Casablanca—

when he spoke about the group of his flunkeys, when the front benchers disappeared, and the smoke-screen was put up to ask for more wages for the railway workers. The front benchers of the Opposition were absent, and he, with a few of the back benchers, came to represent the South African party, who was so terribly sorry for the poor people. I hope the hon. member will become a real Gideon to the band, and will exercise such an influence over them that they will really feel sorry for the railway workers. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) also pleaded for the poor people. I really feel that if anything can be done to improve their position, I would be the first to advocate it. I remember, however, that while the hon. member was still a Minister I begged of him to improve slightly the position of the people who swept his offices. My appeal produced nothing, and he always put me off with fine speeches. In the days when he had the opportunity slightly to ameliorate the lot of these people, he simply sent them away, and I could do nothing for them. I also want to say something in the interests of the railwaymen, and want to tell the hon. member for Salt River that when he, a member of the South African party, goes to the Minister in his capacity as a member of Parliament he must be treated exactly the same as we are. We also are referred to all possible channels, and it is very difficult to get through them because the channels are often very congested. I want to mention the concrete case of a railwayman in Pretoria who has been 23 years in the railway service, and been working there all that time. Three of four years ago he earned on piece work up to £1 5s. or £1 7s. a day, while he now hardly earns 15s. or 16s. a day. What is the reason? The reason is that the person who is at the head of the workshops has little sympathy for these people. That railwayman always did piece work alongside another man, but now he no longer works alongside a more capable man, but a less capable man, and can no longer do the work that he used to do. The foreman of the workshops is trying to plague some people. Why? Because that man has made a complaint against the man who is placed over him. It went through that channel and the man who is over him knows about the complaint, with the result that the worker has a very hard time. The immediate head is informed by the welfare officer about the complaint, and now he is penalizing the poor chap. That is the difficulty in connection with grievances. I have here a few returns of very great importance, viz., in connection with appointments in the service, and I would like hon. members to pay attention to them. Commencing from the 17th January, 1930, there have been 44 officials of the salaried staff appointed to fill vacancies; 43 have English names, and one an Afrikaans name. We hear so much about grievances, but our grievances are much greater. On the 31st January, 1930, 14 people with English names were appointed, and not one with an Afrikaans name. On the 7th February, 1930, six people with English names were appointed, and not one with an Afrikaans name. On the 28th February last the figures were six with English names and none with Afrikaans names. On the 21st March last the figures were respectively six and two. That is the position in the railway service. What do hon. members opposite say about it? It means that almost English-speaking Afrikaners alone are appointed and promoted. When the hon. member for Salt River talks of grievances, I can assure him that we have many grievances.

I made no racial attack.

I will give him the list with pleasure. There is another thing I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, viz., a letter in connection with an appointment—

That is a complaint we have received. We, therefore, also have many complaints. I gladly admit that during the course of the past year there have been great improvements also in connection with the action of the welfare officers. They are people who understand the service, and who are in close touch with the staff concerned, but we find that if the complaints have to go through certain channels, there are difficulties.

When I look at the estimates I see that millions are being spent one one port on the east and one on the west, and when it comes to the middle ports, East London and Port Elizabeth, they have always been handicapped through the dilatoriness of the Government. I am glad now to see that East London is at last to receive some recognition, and also Mossel Bay, and I hope to persuade the Minister that more attention should be paid to Port Elizabeth. The Minister now wants to stop the breakwater there at 4,000 feet, instead of going on with the 8,000 feet. It is quite possible he has some scheme in connection with our jetties, but we should like to know what it is. Our jetties are wearing out, and, if he has any scheme, now is the time to act. Port Elizabeth has always had to justify its position. I do not know that the other harbours have had commissions sent to them, so that they might justify their position. However, the commission sent to Port Elizabeth reported very favourably on the harbour from the point of view of its claim to more consideration, and I was delighted this afternoon at the help the port got from the hon. member for Hospital (Johannesburg). Assistance is welcome. The volume of fruit exports from Port Elizabeth is increasing, and if the Minister will not seriously consider the extension of the breakwater, we shall have to agitate at Humansdorp. I am inclined to believe, however, that he sees the necessity for more work being done at Port Elizabeth harbour. With regard to the railways, we want the trains expedited on the garden route. As to the civilized labour policy, where you replace any labour by other labour, provided it is economically sound, nobody can object. The trouble the Minister finds himself in is that when he brings white men into the towns there is no housing for them. Then the Minister of the Interior comes along with a scheme for sub-economic houses. I am sure it is the wish of the whole House that white labour should be employed where it can be employed on an economically sound basis, but when you bring these people into the towns where they cannot live on their wages, then it is time to think about such a policy. I may be asked where I would have these men employed. I am in favour of the employment of white men on extensive schemes to deal with soil erosion. Our dams are silting up, and this question of soil erosion is becoming a matter of urgency. These labourers I have referred to are more suited to the land than the towns.

They are not as lazy as the farmers.

Laziness is a comparative term; all farmers are not lazy, but some of them are. That remark seems to have hit the hon. member for Victoria West.

I have a few things that I would like to mention, one is in connection with the fence that has to be put up along the railways. Certain specifications are laid down by the Railway Department in connection with the fencing of railways, and they require a very strong wire to be used. The Land Bank also states what they consider good wire. I can give the Minister an example. In the Carnarvon district some time ago tenders were called for to erect a fence along the railway line. The tender, according to the specification of the railways, was £225, and according to the Land Bank specification £120. A difference, therefore, of no less than £105. It appears from this that the railways require unnecessarily strong wire, and I think that the railways will very much assist the farmer if they make the same demands with regard to wire as the Land Bank does. Then there is another point, that is in connection with the carriage of slaughter sheep. I want to ask the Minister to give a cheaper rate for them. I believe the department already grants a cheap rate, but I want to ask whether it is not possible to do something to reduce the cost of transport, e.g., by making use of two-deck trucks. It is already done in other countries, and it ought to be possible, because the animals are light. This would greatly assist the farmers, especially as they only get a very low price for slaughter sheep. Another point I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, and which I have already brought to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture under his vote is the collection of money for the transport of stock during drought. I do not want to go into the merits of the matter again, because the Minister knows the position quite well, but I have discussed it with the farmers, and they have suggested something to which I hope the Minister will give consideration. The Minister of Agriculture has already promised me that he will consider the matter. The proposal in it to appoint a small commission in those districts where there are farmers who have not yet paid, consisting of the magistrate and a number of prominent local farmers, well acquainted with the circumstances, who would be able to deal with every case in their district on its merits. Let them say which people can pay all, which only a portion, and which nothing at all, and let the Administration act on their recommendation. If the Minister does this it will give much satisfaction. At present it only happens on the magistrate’s recommendation. The magistrates are good people, but they are often appointed to a district where they are not acquainted with the financial position of the people. Unfortunately, it still happens that a magistrate is appointed who does not even know their language. If that commission of persons acquainted with the circumstances is appointed, it will greatly assist the Minister in getting in money from those who can pay, and on the other hand he will be certain about the people who cannot pay. I hope the Minister will give his attention to this.

I do not think there has been at any time so much dissatisfaction among the working staff of the railways as at present. I do not say that to try to gain any party advantage, but it is necessary to bring it to the Minister’s notice. This applies not only to workshops but also to the clerical staff. I propose to deal first with the clerical staff. Quite a number have reached a grade in which they earn £15 a month and because they are not proficient in the second language, they are kept there indefinitely. These young men have tried to pass examinations three times and have failed. Recently quite a number left for Rhodesia and other parts of the country. This is rather serious. These are young South Africans who are leaving their country because you deny them a fair living because they cannot master the second language. These young men have a right to promotion, but because they find it impossible to pass an examination in the second language it is denied them. There is no other reason.

Except that the law lays it down.

In Natal there are special circumstances—

The law made by the previous Government lays it down.

The previous Government did not administer that law as harshly as you do. I think this matter deserves attention because these young South Africans have every right to make a living in their own country. There is another matter I wish to refer to and that is the workshops. They are seething with dissatisfaction because you have tried to speed them up on unnatural lines, to make men go a little faster without worrying about the organization of your plant and the layout of the shop. I could tell the Minister some facts about these shops that he passes through so hurriedly that would give him cause for reflection of conditions that make it impossible to turn out work in the most efficient way. This is the letter of a man who has put in 38 years’ service as a railwayman. It reads—

This man does not mind me using his name. I think it is absolutely necessary the Minister should know the spirit permeating these workshops and I think the House should take a serious view of the discontent of these railwaymen. Before you can speed up you want efficient organization; you want a better brain and experience behind the system.

I think I may congratulate the Minister on having effected a saving of some £16,000 in the cost of the mechanical department. One disquieting feature, however, is that mentioned by the hon. member for Uitenhage, namely a reduction of over £41,000 in the payments to artisans. I am raising the point here because if there is one department more than another that requires investigation it is the mechanical department. I do not know if other departments have been organized on the same lines, but I am quite satisfied that the mechanical department is still costing the administration far too much. I believe this is partly due to an error on the part of an engineer who is no longer in the employ of the administration. Take the case of boilers. He set down an age limit for putting them out of service. That was a foolish thing to do, as everything depends on the materials of which these boilers were constructed and while some may be obsolete in the time mentioned, others may, with light or heavy repairs, as may be required, be made serviceable. The workshops are very slack indeed at the moment, on account of the absence of repair work, and the saving of £41,000 is probably due to a reduction in staff, as wastages are not being made up. The policy of declaring rolling stock obsolete on a time limit has made it necessary to have heavy importations of new rolling stock and the consequent falling off in repair work. I ask the Minister to make a searching enquiry into this department, because I make this assertion that the department is top-heavy in supervision. Imagine the mechanical department. You have a chief mechanical engineer and an assistant chief mechanical engineer, who is now superintendent of motive power, these are indispensable. Then we come to a new thing. You have two production engineers. I wish to say something about these engineers. This system was taken over from America where they have production engineers and foremen in works where they have mass production. Is it necessary to have these production engineers here? In the workshops you have an engineer, an assistant mechanical engineer, an assistant to the assistant mechanical engineer, a production foreman and a bonus inspector. You have the foremen in the various departments. You have sub-foremen in the department and charge hands and leading hands, and then you come to the actual producer. This organization is absolutely too heavy for our service. There is no private firm in the world that could run its business successfully by loading up its overhead charges in the manner in which our mechanical department is loaded up. Take the production foremen. I do not know what their duties are, and I do not think anybody else knows what their duties are. But this is what it leads to. It leads to a tremendous amount of over lapping. When a thing is to be done, the head-foreman says, “That comes within the sphere of the production foreman". When the production foreman is referred to, he says, “No, that comes in the sphere of the bonus inspector They do not know where they are. The official who should be responsible, is the head foreman. He should be directly responsible to the chief mechanical engineer and the general manager. They hardly know where they are to-day because of these men, and the foreman has not the same control over the men who are actually doing the job. I suggest to the Minister that he make a searching investigation as to whether the statements I am making now are not absolutely true. These bonus inspectors have been discussed over and over again. They are useless and unnecessary. This work is not a piecework system. It is a time system, in which a certain amount of time is allotted to every job, and the man who ran do, it within that time, receives a 25 per cent. bonus. The foreman and the charge hand should be responsible for seeing that the job is correctly done and the voucher correctly made out. The inspectors come along and they find a slight error in some piece of Work. If they find many errors, they add them up and report them to the head office, perhaps in Salt River or Uitenhage. At the end of a month, they found errors which amount perhaps to £100 or £200, and yet during that month, in wages and allowances, they have probably spent that amount. They may go to another place and find no errors at all. At the end of the year, we have this vote of £6,000 for the bonus inspectors and, in fact, they will not save one quarter of that amount. In these shops the head-foreman should have his eye upon things. His clerk should keep himself in touch with the vouchers. The time office have the schedules in front of them and they should be able to see whether any errors have been made. Piece-work inspectors and production foremen only involve overhead charges which the railways are not capable of carrying. I ask the Minister to make an enquiry into the mechanical department. I want a searching enquiry as to whether the position is not as I have stated. The money received here could probably be saved in other departments if they were properly organized, and it might be devoted to what the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) was talking about this afternoon—increasing the pay of these lower-paid men. I ask for a searching enquiry into this department in order to find out where the money is going. It is not going to the men who are actually doing the job. It is not paying anything extra for the work that is done, and it is not bringing into the country new material. I say that there must be reorganization in this department. I want to deal with an interesting matter in connection with the Railway Board. [Time limit.]

I think it is just as well that I should now reply to some of the questions and representations made to me. There will, of course, be other points that hon. members will wish to discuss, but if I now reply to certain questions, then it will not be necessary for hon. members to repeat those questions. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost) asked that I should make a statement in connection with the appointment of a control board. The members of it have only been temporarily appointed, and we are now asking for nominations to permanently appoint the board. I am, however, glad to hear that leaders like him, and responsible men, think that the control board will do a great deal to get rid of grievances, and that it is welcomed. I certainly think that the control board will introduce a large amount of satisfaction into the service. The hon. member also spoke about motor transport. He pointed out that certain firms had reaped great benefit from the experience of the administration with regard to motor vehicles, and that that firm was now selling motor vehicles to private persons and companies. He asks if it is not possible to prevent the firm doing so. I think it would be wrong to do so, although I admit that it was a great advantage to that company to sell motor vehicles to the administration, and to make use of the administration’s experience. At the same time I want to say that if there is another firm which thinks that it can supply a better vehicle to the administration then we will at once be prepared to select the vehicles of such a firm in order to ascertain whether they will be more efficient for our service. I further want, in general, to say a few words about the grievances mentioned here, some of my hon. friends on this side of the House have once more suggested a grievances commission, and the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Pretorius) even went so far as to say that there should be a grievances commission at every depot. I doubt very much whether the hon. member was serious in that. When he reconsiders the matter he will see that such a thing is impossible. Hon. members must realize that if we appoint a grievances commission, and the management of the railways remains wrong then the appointment will be of no use. The grievances commission will possibly try to remove grievances, but if the administration is wrong, then there will be just as many new grievances as fast as the grievances commission removes them. For that reason I am not prepared to appoint a grievances commission. But we are doing our best to get a healthy and sympathetic administration, which will so manage our railways that there will be no reason, or very little reason, for complaint. Hon. members will, however, agree with me that it is not an easy task. We must work with the material we have. I have never yet heard of any hon. member on this side of the committee proposing that we should dismiss the thousands of uni-lingual officials. We have those officials and we must work with that material. Unless we no longer require the services of an official we cannot dismiss him, and we must make the best use of the material we have. In all the seven divisions of our railway system there are people in responsible positions who have authority over the staff, and if hon. members think that the difficulties or grievances of the staff, supposed grievances or actual grievances, will cease to exist under a sympathetic administration, then they are certainly under the wrong impression. Human nature will remain what it is. When a person has a certain desire, and that desire is not met then it is seldom that such a person submits to circumstances and is satisfied. He feels aggrieved and therefore we will always have grievances. But I think hon. members will agree with me that we have made very great advances in this respect. I will not go so far as the hon. member for Pretoria (District) and say that there are politics behind the grievances. It is true, however, that the hon. member put his finger on the right spot when he said that a great part of those grievances was due to political action. When we, e.g., listen to the speech of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), then it is clear to us that speeches are made with the object of arousing for political purposes a feeling of injury among the railway workers. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj Roberts) brought up the work of the Appeal Board. I do not know whether I understood him correctly, but if I am right in thinking that he asked me to see that when an Appeal Board has unanimously decided to uphold the appeal of a railway worker, that the system manager must then submit to the judgment of the Appeal Board, or that the onus should be put on him to note a further appeal, if he is not satisfied with the judgment of the Appeal Board. But I want to point out to him that the system manager is not the accused, and we therefore cannot put the onus on him of noting an appeal, if the accused thinks that he has not yet received justice. Such a person always has the right to note an appeal to the Railway Board and the Minister. The Railway Board will then go into the circumstances of the case with the Minister, and justice will be done as far as possible.

Why should the workman note an appeal when the Appeal Board has already acquitted him?

Yes, but the 1925 Act clearly lays down what the procedure is, and that Act was dealt with in a select committee where the staff had every opportunity of clearly stating its views. The staff is therefore partly responsible for these regulations in connection with the noting of appeals. Let me say here that the appeal regulations of the Railway Administration are very involved and long. Private individuals would never dream of giving workers the rights of appeal that we give to railway officials. It is not an easy matter to get rid of a railway worker or an official. It is a very long procedure, and it occurs that it is sometimes desirable to get rid of a person, but the long procedure which can be adopted makes it practically impossible.

On the other hand, the railway official has just as long a procedure to go through to get his rights.

Yes, but it is in conformity with the 1925 Act in which the staff assisted. The hon. member for Carolina (Mr. W. H. Rood) and other members brought up the question of housing for railway workers and officials. The difference between houses was referred to, but allow me to say that the railway worker, even if the house is lighted by electricity, never pays more than one-sixth of his wages for housing. I think if hon. members were to compare the house rents of railway officials, with that which they have to pay for private houses, then they will realize that the rent paid to the railways is very low. Railway officials are always applying to us to build houses so that they can go and live there instead of hiring private houses. If hon. members refer to the loan estimates they will see that we are providing more in this respect. There are possibly cases where houses are old, and in those cases the opinion possibly exists that the rent of one-sixth of the wage is unfair. Hon. members should point out to those people that there is a house rent committee at the head office, and if a good case can be made out in exceptional circumstances, then I am ready to enquire into it, if it is proved that the house rent is too high. Then the hon. member also spoke about the transfer of officials from one place to another, and of cases where a father and son could live together in matters of that kind. That is exactly where the welfare officers can do such good work and take action. The welfare officer travels through the whole system, and it is just for those matters that he is of so much importance. The hon. member for Zwartruggens (Mr. Verster) asked for a grain elevator. His representations will be considered, then he warned hon. members who represent the suburban divisions. I hope they will take it to heart.

What do you say?

I say that as responsible members of the public they must realize that if they want the railway service to continue and want to have a good service they should support the railways more.

Do you want to pull up the lines?

I am not talking of pulling up, but I say that the public in the suburban area of Cape Town have such a good service as to be comparable with that in any part of the world. If they are not prepared to appreciate the service, then I cannot bind Parliament as to the future. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (South) (Mr. Haywood) spoke about old sleepers. My information is that unmarried persons who have to support members of their family, such as a mother or other relations, can also buy the sleepers on the same conditions as married men. I will, however, go into the matter again and see if that is actually the case. Then the hon. member, and other hon. members spoke about the under-foremen, and quoted a list with names of under-foremen who, for the most part, almost exclusively, bore English names. Let me tell my hon. friends that I quite agree with them that it is a pity that it must be so. Who, however, is responsible? Certainly not the present administration. For that we must look into history. Our Afrikaans-speaking people did not in the past go in for that kind of work, and learnt no trades, but went farming, or selected other occupations. As a result of that we have even been compelled in the past to import tradesmen from abroad. Large numbers of competent tradesmen had to be imported.

You are still doing it to-day. You have imported five chefs.

The hon. member cannot apparently see the difference between competent trademen and chefs, and it is difficult to argue with the hon. member in the circumstances. But to-day there are in our service many apprentices who have gone through, or are now going through, a course in the workshops. Without the least doubt, therefore, in the course of years that objection will disappear, because they will come into the service as efficient tradesmen. The hon. member, however, also drew attention to another serious matter, viz., that there are bilingual people who have been for years in the service, longer than other persons who are unilingual, and that the latter are promoted and not the former. I know that the hon. members on this side of the House do not like me to say that I must act under the regulations, but I just want to ask what would be the position if I were to allow the regulations to be departed from where the responsibility resting on the people in the service is so great. The smallest insignificant mistake of a single person may lead to the greatest disaster, and if I do not uphold the principle of the regulations I shall not be rendering good service to the railway service. I do not doubt that there are people who have been a long time in the service without promotion, but the hon. member knows that they can go to the Railway Board if they think that they are being done an injustice, and the Railway Board will go into it. My friend here has said that the channel for grievances is blocked up. That is not so because every week we have numbers of appeals before us, and if the channels were blocked up the appeals surely would not reach us. I want, however, to say this that if the subordinate officials—I am not talking of the higher officers because no charge is made against them—were to stop appeals immediate action would be taken. That may cost them their appointments because they do not tolerate an official contravening the regulations, while he expects them to be observed by his subordinates. The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) once more asked for stations from Worcester to Mossel Bay. I expected a little gratitude from the hon. member. Just let the hon. member examine slightly what we have done for that line in past years. We not only bought the line for £1,000,000, but we have in addition spent about three-quarters of a million to put the line into proper order. I can only say that my hon. friend had to pay the high tariffs all those years, had a poor service and bad stations. To-day there is a lower tariff, a first-class service, but with regard to the third item, I fear I cannot give much hope. We hesitate a great deal to-day before we spend money on stations. I will, however, see what we can do in the future. The hon. member mentioned Mossel Bay. I want to ask him how many lorries run between Mossel Bay, Beaufort West, Prince Albert, and Loxton belonging to the people who now want more money to be spent on stations and harbours. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. de Souza) referred to the railway rates on flour and asked for the abolition of the maximum rate. This is one of the matters that has caused me many headaches, but the difficulty is that during the course of a number of years vested rights have been created. The wheat farmers of the Western Province, e.g., always have the privilege of a maximum rate for flour, and its abolition would cause great dissatisfaction, and it would also affect the Transvaal consumer because the Transvaal does not produce sufficient wheat for its own requirements. If we take the mileage basis for the carriage of flour then the Transvaal consumer will have to pay more for his flour than he does to-day.

No.

The hon. member says no. I am prepared to go into the matter with him. If however, we touch the old vested rights we shall have many difficulties. Then he spoke about the wool rate, I thought that he would show a little gratitude because we have considerably reduced the wool rate. Reduced it so much that the revenue for the carriage of wool has dropped by £70,000.

If the wool is pressed the rate is lower.

But the farmers make use of it. Then he says that we must abolish the splitting up of rates in connection with the branch lines. I would very willingly do so, but does the hon. member think that we can do so to-day? What are the farmers doing? They give a high class of traffic to the motor lorries, and the class which is carried cheaply they give to the railways. Does he think then that we can make the loss still greater? I would very willingly change the splitting of the rates, but the loss in connection with the branch lines would instead of £600,000 probably be £750,000, or £1,000,000 a year. If the farmers will not realize that it is in the interests of their community that they should insist on the merchants, the garage men, the shopkeepers, and everyone else using the railways for all classes of traffic, then I see a dark future for the carriage of goods that are carried at a low rate. The hon. member for Victoria (West) (Mr. Sauer) asked why there was a distinction between the specifications of the railways, and of the Land Bank with regard to the wire for fencing purposes. I will have the data he has mentioned carefully investigated. I admit that they are important. With regard to the carriage of sheep we have tried to introduce double-deck trucks, but unfortunately we have not had much support. The difficulty also is that in certain times of the year, when few or no sheep are offered there is no need for the double-deck trucks, and we cannot use them for other traffic. We have, therefore, decided to abandon the experiment. Then the hon. member asked for a committee to decide who can and must pay the arrear money in connection with the transport of stock during the drought, and who could be given time. I do not know whether it is necessary. I have discussed the matter with the Minister of Agriculture, but we have both hitherto always been very generous towards persons who bona fide applied for extension. I will, however, go into the matter further.

† A very large number of matters have been raised by hon. members on the other side, and I shall endeavour to deal with them as shortly as possible so as not unduly to take up the time of the committee. The hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) dealt with the consideration of select committee reports. These reports are most valuable, but I must join issue with him when he says that my department do not take the most serious notice of these reports.

I said Parliament has no say with regard to them.

I assure my hon. friends that I take the most careful note of them, though sometimes we are not able to carry out the recommendations. The hon. member has referred to our motor services. I understood him to say that he wanted them embodied in the estimates. These services must necessarily be flexible. If you were to introduce them by way of the estimates, you would remove that flexibility which is so essential in connection with the working of our motor services. I think we have done good work by means of our motor services with regard to the development of the country. There is no desire on the part of the Administration to keep any information from the House with regard to the operation of these services. I was more than pleased to hear my hon. friend on the policy of civilized labour. Not a word of criticism !

I asked for information as to what the position is.

My hon. friend has now evidently gone to the other extreme. He is not only a keen supporter of civilized labour, but he is now very much afraid that we will abandon that policy. I assure him that he need have no fear whatsoever.

How do you interpret those figures?

The position with regard to unemployment last year was easier.

Are you employing them now?

Yes, in very large numbers, but we are not taking on any staff at the present time for perfectly good reasons.

Are you dismissing any?

No, certainly not. The hon. member for Sea Point raised the question of the new regulations. I understand that the general manager and the assistant manager are dealing with the objection that has been raised to that regulation. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has dealt with the question of the rate on milk. The existing rate on milk per passenger train is a very low one, running from ¾d. per gallon for from 1 to 25 miles, to 1½d. per gallon for from 51 to 75 miles, and that includes the return of the empty cans. I think my hon. friend will agree that the rate is a low one. He compares it with the maize rate, but I think he will agree that the milk cans cannot be packed one above the other, whereas maize is dealt with in bulk and by goods trains. There is, therefore, a vast difference between carriage of maize and milk. As regards his plea for a differential rate, I am afraid I cannot agree to that on the ground of difficulties in control. The practice on New Zealand railways has been referred to. All that the general manager has done is to quote the practice there, and if our farmers and merchants are not prepared to wake up, we may have to adopt it. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) asked me about the possibility of pulling up the Cape Flats line. I am informed by the general manager that the station facilities have been improved, that the service has been improved, and that fares have been cheapened. Yet the traffic is falling off, and there is a loss of approximately £40,000 a year. The hon. member has spoken of future development, but surely if the people of the Cape Flats find that they are better served by motor vehicles, notwithstanding the extra facilities and cheaper fares, then there is only one thing we can do, and that is to pull up the line. Do hon. members suggest that there is anything else to be done? I say that with regard to that line, and any other line, that if the local public are not prepared to support it with all their traffic we shall have very seriously to consider the question of the retention of the line. He has said that he has heard that the board may visit that area. I have asked the board now that we are no longer mainly interested in new lines, to visit the areas where the loss is great, and to point out the position to the local community. The board will visit that area, place all the facts before the community, and ask them if they are prepared to give us support. If they are not prepared to do so, then all I can say is that the fate of the Sea Point line will be the fate of the Cape Flats line. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. Wares) has asked about the question of harbour development at Port Elizabeth. Let me say this, that, as far as the bigger harbour scheme is concerned, the Government is not prepared to commit the House and the country to that. At the same time we are proceeding with the development in Algoa Bay. Hon. members for Port Elizabeth know that we have placed money on the estimates for certain necessary work there, and that at the present time all I can say is that I am not prepared to commit the country to the larger expenditure of a bigger harbour. With regard to the extension of the southern breakwater, I am informed by the technical officers that it is not necessary to carry the southern wall any further than was outlined by me in my previous budget statement. In order to satisfy Port Elizabeth people, who take a keen interest in these matters, as they know, I asked the chief civil engineer to visit Port Elizabeth to meet the Harbour Board, and explain the whole position. The question of making provision for shipping citrus and deciduous fruit has not been overlooked. We have appointed a committee to deal with this question, but hon. members will realize the difficulties. There is not sufficient suitable traffic offering at Port Elizabeth and East London—I refer to refrigeration—to justify us in building very extensive stores. One of the things I asked the committee was to test out the feeling of the people of those areas as to whether they would be prepared to pay a higher rate for the use of the refrigerated store than is paid at the Cape or at Durban. At Cape Town you have two seasons, and at Durban we hope to have meat for export. But we have not that position at Port Elizabeth and East London.

There is plenty of other cargo.

Not refrigerated cargo. Hon. members will appreciate that a lot of capital is required, and there is the further question as to whether that refrigerator plant should be placed away from a deep-water berth. I am quite prepared to consider the question on its merits when we deal with the matter. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Kayser) has raised the question of better services in the midland system. I can only say that I am passing that over to the general manager, and I am sure he will pass it over to the system manager—my hon. friend will appreciate that is the correct procedure. I am sure they would be the last to tell me that the service must be accelerated if the conditions will not allow. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) will forgive me when I say that when he spoke of rates of pay for civilized labourers, it left me cold. Not because I do not feel for these people; many of them are my own kith and kin, and I feel more keenly for them than he does, but my friend must realize that there is an economic limit, beyond which if you pay these men, the whole of your policy will come to grief. On former occasions I have informed the House that these men, together with privileges, do not get 5s. a day. They get from 8s. to 9s. I have often explained that in the Cape they get a lower house allowance.

What do all the benefits amount to per day? They do not tally with the figures of the select committee.

My hon. friend has plenty of opportunity to raise that question. The question of a new station at East London has been raised. I can hold out no hope that we shall be able to provide a new station at East London. I think people there have been very fairly dealt with. The hon. member has always argued that the turning basin will cost practically nothing, but if he will look at the figures, he will take a different view. My hon. friend says it depends on the system of bookkeeping. I prefer to depend upon officers with wide experience in that regard. With reference to the policy in the workshops, hon. members have asked me why we have not made provision for a number of things which have been mentioned. Generally we have had this year, as a result of financial stringency, to cry a halt, but there is no desire on the part of the Government to stop development, and it is our policy to manufacture as largely as we can in our own workshops. I very much regret that the hon. member for Uitenhage should have had an unfortunate experience in travelling from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth. I have asked hon. members before when they do have these unfortunate experiences to bring them to the notice of the officers concerned. If the hon. member will give me the date, I will investigate the matter, although it will probably be somewhat difficult now. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson) has dealt with the question of the train services beyond Wynberg, and he says we have restricted the service. We very much appreciate the support we get on the suburban line from that community, and the system manager is about to meet a public deputation in connection with the matter, and I assure him the subject will be carefully considered. We have not desire to penalize loyal supporters of the railway, and anything we can do to assure that continued loyal support will certainly be carried out. He has asked me about the policy of level crossings. Owing largely to the very helpful manner in which the mayor of Cape Town and the chairman of the Railway Committee met the Railway Administration—I want to pay a tribute to them— we have been able to dispose of this matter. Even if they agreed with me on several points, it showed there were good arguments on my side. The whole agreement was made in a most friendly way. I hope hon. members opposite who fake an interest in the economic condition of the railways will be as satisfied as I am. The position is that we are in close consultation with the council, and they have agreed that we should select the most dangerous crossings and provide on the estimates next year for bridging or subways at these dangerous crossings.

Does that include the Observatory crossing?

Probably, as that is one of the dangerous crossings. But we shall select the most dangerous crossings in consultation with the council. Hon. members must appreciate that when we have agreed which crossings must be tackled first, it means that plans have to be drawn up, and that will take some little time. We can go on with the preliminary work, and next year we shall be able to make a start. I am sorry that the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) is not here. I wish to deal with certain points raised by him. I shall deal first with a minor point, the question of local allowances. I have no suggestion to make in regard to the question of local allowances. I think the present system under which the census department supplies figures to the Civil Service Commission, and they fix the allowance payable from time to time in certain areas is a perfectly sound principle, and I certainly have nothing to suggest by way of an alternative to that.

The Public Service Commission do not agree with the findings.

They get their figures from the census department. The census department publishes, month by month, figures of the actual costs of living. The hon. member for Klip River made a vicious attack upon me in regard to the case of young Nel, the young man who falsified a free pass. I am the more surprised at his attack in view of the fact that I placed all the papers at his disposal. Not only did I place the papers at his disposal, but he actually made use of the opportunity. What are the facts? Perhaps I had better read the minute which was submitted to me by the general manager, so that hon. members may have all the facts of the case. The minute reads as follows—

Nel wrote to me from Ladismith, appealing to have this amount with which he was surcharged written off. That letter was sent to the general manager, in the ordinary way, for his report. On his minute I endorsed the action of the general manager in regard to this matter.

What is his explanation?

The explanation was that he was “fed up,” and he thought it would be better if he went home. He was given a free pass to Ladysmith, Natal, but he altered it to Ladismith, Cape. The ticket-examiner discovered this, and the management took steps to recover the amount of the surcharge through the system manager. On that he wrote to me. There was no question of his being in the service at the time, as was suggested by the hon. member for Klip River. The general manager, on his own initiative, and I thoroughly agree with the action he took, said that he had already taken action, and had waived the amount claimed, and there was no objection to the boy returning to the service. I take strong exception to the fact that the hon. member for Klip River, having had access to these papers, and knowing all the facts, should misrepresent the case to the House. If Nel had applied for a free pass to return to Ladismith, Cape, he would have been given it in the first instance. It is our general policy when men are recruited in a particular place, and are sent somewhere else to work, and are then discharged or resign, they are given a free pass to their home.

But why take him back in the service?

He has not been taken back in the service. The general manager said there is no objection to his re-employment, if there was a vacancy. He was not taken back because there was no vacancy. I notice that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) has also disappeared from the House. He referred to policing the station yard at Pietermaritzburg. Except for four hours every Sunday, during the day, the yard is policed all the time. That is my information. The hon. member also raised the question of the rate on export maize. Our export rates on maize have for many years rested on a very low basis. The export rate, which has existed for many years, is 15s. per bag for bagged maize, and 10s. for bulk maize. In the case of bulk maize there is an additional charge of 5s. for handling charges in the elevator. So the rate is the same both for bagged and elevator maize. The export maize rates rest on a very much lower basis than the rates for local consumption. While we are very sympathetic with the maize farmers in the trouble they are experiencing at the present time, with a very low market for their products, a market which I am informed is below their production costs in some cases. I must say, after careful consideration of the whole problem, that I regret that it is impossible for us to give a further reduction. There is the further aspect of the question, if a further reduction is given to the maize farmer. What will be our position in regard to the fruit farmer and other classes of farmers in similar circumstances? The shipping rates quoted are June 15s., July 17s. 6d., and August 20s. per ton. We have made representations to the shipping companies with regard to freights, and we have every hope that they will be able to agree to a reduction in the shipping rates. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) regarding abatement, an agreement has been reached between the Railway Department and the treasury, and we are extending the same treatment to all pensioners. Under the present practice abatement does take place.

How do you reconcile that with the Act?

I am afraid I do not agree with my hon. friend—I think the Act gives us that right. Hon. members have raised the question of the position of the unilingual members of the staff who are barred from receiving their annual increments once they have reached the barrier. I want to say to the hon. member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton) that if anybody is to blame for that it is the House, which, under a previous Government in 1923, laid down that public servants who were members of the staff in 1912 would have an opportunity of qualifying within five years, and if they did not qualify their increments would stop. Therefore, I have nothing to do but to carry out the law. It may be true that under the previous Government the law was not always carried out.

Not so harshly.

I have no option but to carry out the law. I regret that certain clerks are not able to receive their annual increments.

They only have themselves to blame.

Surely it is not too much to ask with regard to public servants who have been in the service since 1912 and later, and have been receiving their salaries from a bilingual public, that they should be qualified in the second language.

Do you not think Natal presents peculiar difficulties?

Why should it? If my hon. friend is prepared to bring in a Bill altering the law let him do so, and see what support he would get.

The examiners set too severe a test.

No, I am afraid the test is not a very stringent one. The test is applied not by us but by the Education Department, to which we entrust the whole matter, so that there may be no question of partiality.

Private Afrikaans teachers tell us that the test is too severe.

We are simply carrying out the law. The hon. member for East London (City)(Mr. Bowie) asked about the position of pre-Union men. The position with regard to them is as follows. We have laid down as an administrative act that for promotion in certain grades bilingualism is an absolutely essential factor. I will give a few cases. Take ticket-examiners and inspectors; they receive no promotion unless they are thoroughly bilingual, even though they may be pre-Union men. The same rule applies with regard to district inspectors, commercial agents, and a large number of grades filled by men who come in daily touch with the public; they must become qualified.

Is there an examination test?

They must pass the departmental test. Surely you do not suggest that we should appoint a man as district inspector who is not bilingual? It is a simple Standard VII test. On the other hand, take a department where the men do not come in touch with the public. The rule does not hold in their case, but in every case where the servants come into touch with the public they must be qualified in both languages, otherwise there is no promotion.

Does that bar promotion altogether?

A unilingual man has no right to expect to be appointed to a position for which the Administration has laid down that there should be a knowledge of both languages. The duty is imposed on us of seeing that those who serve the public must be thoroughly bilingual. This is a step in the right direction, and no injustice is done to our railway servants. Many of our older railway servants, as a matter of fact, have set an example to the younger men by studying hard and passing the test. I pay tribute to their action in that regard.

Do they have to pass a grammatical test, or a mere conversational test?

Both.

Precious few of the public know about the grammar.

I am afraid the hon. member is not very well informed on that point, although there may be many subjects upon which he is well informed. With regard to reduction in maintenance costs, this is the result of large renewal programmes being financed from the renewal funds, and consequently the revenue is relieved of that expenditure. As far as the state of the permanent way is concerned, it is in excellent condition.

What about the £20,000 on drivers’ wages?

The allowances and wages have not been decreased; it is a question of accounting between the different departments.

You have reduced the number of drivers.

We have restricted the promotions of passed firemen to drivers, as a result of the traffic not being there; if the traffic comes forward, there will be corresponding promotions of passed firemen to third-class drivers.

You did not discharge them?

No. The information I have from the department is that the previous year’s estimate was an over-estimate; we did not actually spend as much money as was asked for. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. Wares) has asked me about the garden route; I have already dealt with that. The hon. member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton) raised the question of the condition of our workshops. He must have overlooked the fact that we have spent a very large amount from capital to improve our machinery over the last few years. He is making a mistake when he says the conditions in the workshops are not improved. I would say to the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) that I always listen with a great measure of respect to him in matters of this kind, because he speaks with personal knowledge. I thoroughly appreciate the point be has raised, but I cannot agree with him for the simple reason that I am not qualified to agree or to disagree with him. I am in the hands of the chief mechanical engineer as to workshop practice.

And in every other way.

I have taken what I think is the right step in asking the chief mechanical engineer, Mr. Watson, to go oversea and thoroughly examine the conditions in Great Britain and the Continent with regard to modern conditions in connection with workshops. He will come back in a few months full of new ideas, and, as far as I am concerned, I am prepared in reason to give him an opportunity of carrying out the improvements he might suggest. I now come to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), who has had the distinction of being asked by hon. members on the Opposition benches to move the reduction of the Minister’s salary. Evidently something has miscarried; I do not know what it was. I do not know whether he was at Salt River preparing himself there, but, at any rate, he was not here at the beginning. He has dealt with two aspects. One case was that of transportation pupil Tillman. I do not think I can add very much: he has read practically the whole correspondence to the committee. But does the hon. member appreciate the class of man we want as a transportation pupil? I will give him the qualifications: B.A.Econ., M.A., B.A. B.A.Com., B.Sc., B.Com., M.Sc., and so on. These are the classes of men we appoint as transportation pupils. If the hon. member had given the matter consideration he would have seen that the success of our policy depends on the class of man we appoint. If you water down the qualifications and appoint what might ultimately be an ordinary clerk not capable of taking the broad view which our transportation pupils should take, you would not only make a mistake with regard to that individual, but you would do an injustice to a large number of others in the railway service. Mr. Tillman is an excellent servant—

Is a degree an overwhelming qualification?

I do not say this.

I understand he passed the test.

I would like to let the committee feel that these men, as the committee knows, after their period of training, are at once appointed to a senior position, that of second-grade clerk; that is, they pass over hundreds who have been in the service for a longer period; but in order to get these men to give them at once a higher position in the second grade. Unless we can thoroughly justify their appointment, we have no right to pass over the large class in the service who have given loyal service. Surely the hon. member for Salt River and other hon. members should have appreciated that. A degree is one of the prime qualifications.

Did you not pass over your own officers and introduce outsiders?

The hon. member is just a little too impetuous, as he was on the Motor Carrier Transport Bill.

I do not understand the reference.

In the case of Mr. Tillman, he was matriculated and passed the departmental test, and was advised by the local officers that he had passed the test. I want to say frankly that he was there brought under a misapprehension, and was led to understand that he would get an appointment. That was a mistake. He had to pass the board of senior officers. Surely no one will dispute that the board and the Minister should finally approve of the appointment.

Has anybody been appointed with a less percentage of marks?

Certainly not. The Railway Board and myself went closely into the whole matter, and, although we regretted that Mr. Tillman could not get the appointment, we could not give it to him, because there were others better qualified. We thought that academically and otherwise he was not sufficiently qualified. I hope the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) is not under the impression that Mr. Tillman’s progress has been barred. All this study will come in good stead in future, when the question of his promotion comes up.

He may be made Minister of Railways.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) became one, so there is no reason why Mr. Tillman should not. The hon. member for Salt River also referred to a meeting of certain railwaymen at De Aar. If I understand the hon. member, his grievance is not that the system manager met the men at De Aar. I do not suppose he has any objection, either to the loco. foreman being elected chairman of the meeting. What then is his objection?

The inconsistency of your attitude.

The hon. member is slippery as usual. Does he object to the member for Colesberg (Dr. Lamprecht) being present? The hon. member for Colesberg came to me and informed me that, as a result of a falling off in traffic on that particular division, the system manager at Kimberley had rearranged the train trips, and that it was alleged he was giving to Kimberley a share of the work, which was done formerly by the men of De Aar. I consulted the general manager, and asked him to ask the system manager at Kimberley to meet the men concerned at De Aar, and I gave the necessary notice to the member for Colesberg, as to the date when the system manager would meet the men there. I am prepared to do that with regard to any hon. member. Is there any hon. member who takes the least objection?

Did he address a mass meeting?

The hon. member for Salt River will not dare to make that statement, because it is not correct. The hon. member bases his case on incorrect statements.

Will the Minister deny that the hon. member for Colesberg addressed the meeting?

Certainly. The hon. member for Colesberg attended the meeting. Does the committee appreciate what is behind this? There is a certain type of politician who can only be successful if there are grievances, and I am bound to say to the hon. member for Salt River that he is creating the impression that unless there are grievances, he cannot fish but in troubled waters. I would ask the House can any serious objection be taken against the action of the general manager in arranging for the presence of the system manager, the officer responsible to discuss the general grievances of the employees on that system? Can there be any objection to the presence of the hon. member for Colesberg? Individual grievances were barred. The system manager dealt with matters of general interest, and I am prepared to defend my own action in that regard, and the action of the officers of my department.

I am rather sorry that the Minister always suggests there is something ulterior in any action by any member on this side of the House. I think it is a pity, but I can leave the Minister to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) who, no doubt, will deal with him effectively later on. I want to raise a question affecting the travelling public. We have our usual fast trains which are as good, I suppose, as those of any other country, and the service is good, but when we come to the ordinary trains on the main line, the service is not too good, the attendance is bad, and the meals are worse. When we go off the main line, the service is positively disgraceful. We saw in the papers the other day a report in regard to what happened on a slow train between Johannesburg and Durban. Passengers on this slow train were without any opportunity of having a meal for 25 hours. The report says that one of the passengers, a Canadian tourist, said he was thoroughly disgusted with the trip. I thought we were setting out to try to get people to come to this country. This Canadian tourist said he intended to write to the Canadian newspapers warning intending tourists to bring sandwiches with them. Another of the passengers has given information to the press concerning what the 150 passengers endured during the 25 hours’ journey. I hope the Minister is taking steps to have a searching inquiry made into the matter. The conditions on the slow trains are most unsatisfactory. Take the conditions on the trains between Mossel Bay to Cape Town. Not long ago, on an excursion train conveying people on the return journey, with their children, passengers found that they could get no meals or refreshments of any kind throughout the whole of the long journey. I understand that now all dining saloons have been taken off trains on this line. At the very small stations, those complained of by the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst), you can get nothing, so if there is no dining saloon, people have to go all the way without any refreshment. In support of what I say I draw attention to the Road Board Commission. They say on page 42—

I would ask the Minister to give this matter his careful attention. There is another matter to which I wish to call attention. Frequently I have complained to the general manager and to others. I know it is quite impossible to put a stop to the practice unless members of the travelling public complain at the time. But it is difficult to get persons to complain when they know that an employee would be dismissed and therefore they refrain from making any complaint. I hope that by bringing up this matter in this way it will be made public and these men will take due warning. I refer to the practice of stewards and ticket collectors opening without warning the doors of carriages occupied by ladies. They, with the flimsiest excuses, simply open these carriage doors and walk in. I know that you have a system of chains to fasten the doors, but these are not always fitted. Women travelling alone object to this practice very seriously. On some of these trains where there are ladies in carriages I suggest that these carriages should be marked and that the Minister should appoint a stewardess when there are carriages occupied by ladies alone. It is a very serious matter and I am sure the general manager will agree that it is most difficult to put a stop to this practice. He has asked me to get these people to complain. I hope the Minister will tell us definitely what his views are so that all may know he is determined to take steps to put an end to this serious practice. Then I wish to refer to the frequent occurrence of trains running late. We know they cannot always run up to time. People meeting a train go to a board and find it marked up “train 20 minutes late”. They then go down to the platform, but even though the train may be two hours late, they can get no definite information. Always they are referred to the notice board which remains unchanged. For some reason officials seem afraid to give full information. People have to wait around without knowing when the train will come in. I would also like to ask the Minister how it is we get no information as to what is being done in regard to the suburban line. I understood a departmental commission had been appointed to endeavour to improve the services. If the Minister would take the public into his confidence they would make many suggestions which would prove very helpful to him. Even newspapers complain they can get no information as to changes or possible changes. By taking the public into his confidence, the Minister would do far more to attract the travelling public than by having a departmental enquiry sitting behind closed doors. The members of the staff do not always know the difficulties of the public and why the public prefer a motor-bus, but if the Minister took the public into his confidence, he would get useful information. It is idle to threaten to pull up the suburban line. I suggest to the Minister that he should work with the public, because it would be a paying service if it is properly run and with the assistance of the public it could be made payable. Without this, a departmental report will be of no practical assistance to the Minister in the long run. As far as the suburban line from Cape Town to Simonstown is concerned, the Minister should be very careful how he acts because it is a line which should not be interfered with unless the best possible cause is shown.

I did not intend taking part in this debate, but I am doing so because I would like to make a statement about what has been said here. Of course if anything is said in the House, then we, in the first place, go to the person who has said it. There is an old proverb that two people can say the same thing, and then it is still not the same thing. When I was still a child I was taught an old Roman proverb. That was very long ago, and I do not know if I can still translate it properly. It is similia similibus attractantur. This means that like is attracted by like. If we stretch our imagination a little bit, then you will be able to see what I mean by that. Think of a small soapbox and a little man on it who is just as small, not in person, but in spirit and in views, and then a little speech which suits both. If you put as a heading similia similibus attractantur then you have an image of the hon. member and the speech that he has made here. I have picked up something in the House which more nearly explains his action. It reads as follows [verses read].

Where is the chairman?

I am very glad that your attention is directed to the matter. My going to De Aar had nothing to do with a resolution that was taken beforehand. It has nothing to do with the resolution which was taken by 30 persons at the meeting which was the result of agitation. My going was in consequence of telegrams and letters from railwaymen in connection with certain grievances that they had about which the system manager was to meet them, and they asked me to be present, and not the eminent member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). They asked me to be present as their representative in Parliament. I went, and did not hold a meeting beforehand. I met Mr. Smith, the system manager, on the platform, and made an appointment to go to his private coach. I stayed there from 7 until 8, and at 8 o’clock we went together to meet the people. We consulted about matters from 8 o’clock until half-past twelve. I did not address a mass meeting of railwaymen, but I went into the points on the agenda with them. That is the whole matter and nothing more. The difficulty of the hon. member for Salt River is not that I met the people together with the system manager, but his difficulty is that he is looking for an opportunity to bring the people in the country under the impression that he is the great protagonist of the railway workers. His great trouble is that the trouble at De Aar has been solved, that the people there are satisfied, and that those particular grievances at any rate no longer exist. He has to go and hold a meeting there one of these days in connection with the provincial election, and he feels sorry that he can no longer talk about those grievances. He calls me an eminent member of the Nationalist party. I almost died of fright when I heard that, because no Nationalist has ever yet called me an eminent or prominent member of the Nationalist party. However that may be, I have, in any case, never yet given my front benchers cause to run away out of the House. I have always used so much commonsense that it was not necessary for them to get out of my way, or that it was necessary for the Cape Times to say of me that I had raised a false hope which would never be realised. This would be a wonderful world if we could now and then investigate what was going on in the hearts of some hon. members. I hope the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) will not go out because I would like to address a few words to him. While the hon. member for Salt River was speaking I looked at the hon. member for Sea Point. He will be the future Minister of Railways of his party, and I wished that I could see what was going on in his heart while the farce of the hon. member for Salt River was being performed here.

Is this a lesson in psychology?

No, it is a lesson on “irresponsibles.”

Is this what I had to stop for?

I know I may not say it, but if I could repeat what the hon. member for Salt River had told me in the lobbies about his motion, the committee would be astonished.

You can say what you like.

I am very glad the hon. member for Salt River has given me the opportunity of saying something that is not reported in my previous speech because he will hear about it when he gets to De Aar. The words were: “I am entirely in agreement with the motion before the House, and also to include local allowances, but I nevertheless use my commonsense.”

I am very pleased to hear the hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours in his reply to a certain point, at all events, to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence)—and I heartily endorse it—definitely laid it down that it is within the right of any any every member of Parliament to attend meetings of railwaymen. There may be some particular circumstances of which I am not aware which constitute a reason for hon. members not attending railwaymen’s meetings, but as a general principle it is all to the good that not only should hon. members be permitted but they ought to attend to see how things are going on and to hear what the railwaymen have to say. Of course this helps hon. members in their criticism of the Government. There is another thing I am pleased about, too. The Minister administered to me what he called some of my own medicine, but if that is his medicine it is delightful. Any condemnation from the Minister of my policy is one of the highest testimonials that could be paid me, because he and I clash in our economic outlook. Therefore, when I have proved myself in the eyes of the Minister a failure in the postal or other departments, then I have proved to the satisfaction of the vast maority of the public that I am a success. On this point of economics, the Minister very carefully refrained from attempting to reply to my criticism of his payment of civilized labour on the railways. He was wise, of course, because he had no case and could not possibly answer it without giving himself away in the eyes of those whom he is pleased to call “his own kith and kin.” In his reference to myself, does he presume to say that I have no right to deal with his own kith and kin?

I did not question that.

He seems to suggest that I was treading on his territory. I wish to repudiate that. The cleavage in this House and through the country is economic, and not racial. I do not want to hurt the hon. gentleman’s feelings, but the hon. gentleman thinks more of a rich Englishman, than he does of a poor Dutchman. The difference between us is that I think more of a poor Dutchman than I do of a rich Englishman. The Minister says his only reply to my strictures in regard to the paying of wages is that there is an economic limit. It is just as well for the Minister not to be in a hurry to get through his estimates to-night, but to give us a serious statement as to what he considers to be the economic wage limit. In some cases it is 3s. 6d. a day and in others 5s. or 6s. 9d. In arriving at his economic limit what economic considerations does the Minister take into account? Does he take into consideration the fact with his mid-Victorian ideas of economics, that the spending power of the community is increased—whether on the railways or anywhere else—and is reflected tenfold in the carrying capacity of the railways? Does the Minister realize that by increasing the wages of his own men he thereby induces such a vast accretion of business right through the country that it returns tenfold to the railways, increases their earning capacity and thereby enables him to pay more wages? You cannot afford to get down to the economic limit of the Minister. We have no right to contemplate the economic limit the Minister talks about. If you raise the economic standard of the people of the whole country, you increase stupendously, out of all proportion, the earning and spending capacity of the country itself. I want to know whether he takes into account that fact, which economists all over the world now are beginning to realize is one of the most potent factors in the success of any country. I do not want to go over the whole ground again, with regard to big captains of industry saying you have to meet a low scale in a country by increasing the wages of the workers. The Minister shows he is not capable of running the railways successfully when he does not take into consideration the economic limit and the capacity of the absorption of the individuals under that economic limit. I want to say a word to the hon. member who has gone—the hon. and very reverend member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen)—a gentleman who took me to task by stating that, when I was in a position of authority, I did not take the opportunity of improving the conditions of the people there; in fact, he said that he came to me about certain sweepers, and I turned him away. It shows that the longer association even a padre has with politics the more elastic his conscience becomes. His statement is unfair and untrue. I did not turn him away. He and I together endeavoured to have the conditions improved, but it was the Public Service Commission which made it impossible. Even so, these men were getting half as much again as the Minister of Railways and Harbours paid his labourers.

I want to ask the Minister’s attention to a few matters in connection with the right of the Afrikaner boy in the railway service. The Minister on a previous occasion pointed out that he and the general manager are practically not responsible for those appointments. To a certain extent I admit that they are not concerned with every appointment that is made. At the same time, I want to point out that the general manager is the responsible person, and therefore he ought to give his attention to complaints as they come in. I again make the definite statement to-night that tile Afrikaner boy does not get his rights in the railway service. Yesterday I got a letter from an Afrikaner boy living in my constituency, he was in the railway service, and received a notice that his services were no longer required. It may be thought that there was something wrong, but it appears from his discharge that he was a good man who had performed satisfactory service. The Minister has said here to-night that he would appoint a board of control provisionally. I may say at once that we welcome that statement. But I would like to know from the Minister how that board will be made up, what its functions will be, and whether it will be composed of officials in the department, or outside of it. Let me say at once that if such a board is appointed by the general manager I will have very little confidence in it. Then we shall have the same position again as we have to-day with other small boards consisting of officials. I must say that the Minister has always been very sympathetic towards the Afrikaans railway workers, but I want him not only to be sympathetic, but that he should go into the matter, because there are real grievances on account of the Afrikaners not getting their rights, and the general manager is responsible for it. Before he was appointed general manager, he was fairly favourable to the Afrikaans-speaking people, but if we examine his action then it appears that it was nothing but camouflage. It looks as if he is only thinking of himself because next year or very shortly he will require a large pension. I do not know whether he is responsible for it, but we find that his own son was appointed to a position to which he was not entitled in my opinion. He was appointed to the post of sub-manager in the road motor service. We know that this is going to become a very big service in the future, and when we find that that person is appointed sub-manager of it, then we know that within a short time he will be appointed general manager. I do not know what his qualifications are but I would like to Know why the son of the general manager is appointed to such a prominent position on the railways. I want again to point out to the Minister that if a board of control is appointed, I hope he will put Afrikaans-speaking persons on it, and that the board will consist of persons not in the service, because it will be useless if it consists of the former. An attack has been made by hon. members opposite on the railway service, because according to them the trains are too slow, and proper provision is not made for tourists. I have no objection to provision being made for tourists, but I think we should first look after our own people. On our main lines in the north we find that everything is done for the passengers. It may be said that they pay for it, but on the other lines the people also pay for it. We find, e.g., that on the lines in the north-west, such as the line to Bitterfontein, the worst coaches are used. The coaches are an absolute scandal especially the first-class ones. Why must we also always suffer in those areas while others are privileged? We surely ought to have a right to the facilities given to other lines. Then the expenditure on the railways is complained about, as well as the deficit there is. Let me say that the large deficit is to a great extent caused by the railway officials looking after themselves. Every system manager, every engineer travels in a special coach. Everything is done for their convenience, but when we, as members of Parliament, ask for a reserved coupe then we cannot get it, although the officials get every convenience at the expense of the State.

I first want to refer to the matter of abatement—when a pensioner is reemployed by the Administration. I was not at all satisfied with the answer the Minister gave, indeed I am very much concerned about it. This matter was investigated by a committee which sat in 1920 and by another committee in 1924. Reports were made making recommendations which were embodied in the Act of 1925, and I thought the question had been settled. The question is one under the Act 24 of 1925. I am not referring to cases of a special nature under Section 44, but to the ordinary case under Section 45. This lays down clearly that when a pensioner is re-employed he should be paid the remuneration usually paid in respect of the post concerned without any regard to any annuity drawn by him. The word “annuity" in that section means what is more commonly referred to as “pension”, on which see the definitions in Section 1 of “annuity” and “pension.” Now this section recognizes the right of the Minister to make an abatement in certain circumstances, but they must be special circumstances. The Minister appears to have laid down a rule in such a way that the exception has become the general rule, in conflict with the principle accepted in Section 45 and the statutory principle is that the quality of the billet must be treated on its own basis and the man paid irrespective of what his pension rights may be, and this is because his pension rights are not his by virtue of his present work, but are his entirely because of past services—and of his contributions to pension. When a pensioner is re-employed his pension should not be taken into account at all—and so here should be no abatement at all unless in any given case there are special circumstances which in that case justify breaking it as an exception to the statutory rule. Now I want to refer to the remarks the Minister made with regard to pre-Union officials. What I am concerned about is that the Minister laid down that in the case of certain positions there should be no further promotion unless the holder of the post possesses proper qualifications in both languages. I quite agree that where it is for the public convenience —though the rule should not be strained too far in cases such for instance as that of Natal— that a man should possess a proper knowledge of both languages, he should certainly have that knowledge. I fully accept that position. But just as language rights are entrenched in the Act of Union so also in the same Act there is the entrenchment of the rights of pre-Union officials. They should not be penalized or handicapped for a defective knowledge of either langauge : and the rule of recognising the rights of the public must in some way be reconciled with the recognition of the rights of pre-Union officials, Dutch or English. Now it amounts to this, that if, say, a particular ticket examiner cannot be appointed to any other post and cannot be promoted in his position as ticket examiner, because, being a pre-Union official he has not acquired competency in both languages, he is going to suffer seriously in spite of the Act of Union. I say something must be done to rectify the position, taking fully into account the convenience of the public. You are not going to do that by laying down hard and fast rules of law. I realise the importance of appointing a man with a knowledge of both languages where the public convenience requires it, but you must for instance recognise the position in Natal, where there are many men who have found it difficult, just as others have found it difficult, even in the Cape, to pick up the other official language. You might take the case of a man I came across a couple of years ago who for various reasons in spite of efforts on his part was unable to pick up the other language: but at great sacrifice to himself sent his children to school where they have acquired such proficiency in Afrikaans, that the girl and boy had beaten all their fellow pupils who are Afrikaans speaking. There was no desire on the part of that man not to show due regard to the feelings of the other section of the population. But there is a certain class of man who finds it difficult, if not impossible, to pick up a language at anything like an advanced age, especially a man who is working long hours and has got a large family and various other things to take up his time. He finds it difficult, perhaps through lack of opportunity, to acquire the other language. Something should be done to remove the hardships which may follow if the Minister’s rule is rigidly applied. The pre-Union official has his rights entrenched in the Act of Union just as much as the sacred rights of language are entrenched in the Act of Union. It is the duty of the Department to see that these two things are recognised and the rights of the public and of pre-Union officials under the Act are reconciled. [Time limit.]

The Minister has partially answered the points raised in connection with promotion in the railway. I just want to mention one other matter, in connection with the appointment of unilingual officials, I pointed out that persons who have been treated unjustly have to complain through the usual channel. I know of a case in Cape Town where the person appealed 11 months ago in Durban because he could not get promotion. The letter was sent to the system manager. Eleven months after the man had not yet received a reply. He complained to the Minister’s office and received the reply that he must go through the proper channel he had complained through. The reply was to the effect that the General Manager was sorry but that the application had been carefully considered and that he is not appointed. The fact is that the person, himself, saw a letter in the system manager’s office at Durban which said that the application could not be considered. Yet the reply says that it had been considered. There is a deeply felt grievance among railway officials that they are neglected. I have mentioned two cases where bilingual people were passed by people with less service than they had and who were unilingual. Now it is said that these persons can complain. It takes months and months before the complaint reaches the Minister, and I say an injustice is being done to them. If there are such cases where persons with long service are not appointed, but other unilingual persons with less service, why cannot the Minister get the files in connection with the matter and go into it? I have quoted concrete cases where thoroughly bilingual people with 20 years’ service have been overlooked. Then I want to bring another point to the notice of the Minister which I discussed during the budget debate, viz., that of driver Havenga.

The hon. member cannot go into that again. That matter was disposed of during the budget debate.

I want to call attention to a matter of very real grievance to a number of railwaymen. I doubt if the number exceeds 100. But while the smallness of the number may tend to make the Minister close his ears to a grievance, that does not lessen the sense of grievance in the individuals affected. In 1925 a new pension fund was established, and railwaymen were encouraged to transfer from the existing to the new fund. It was represented to them that generally it would be in their interests to transfer, and most of them did so. As a matter of fact, it has been in the interests of the majority to make the change, but there have been certain exceptions which were not foreseen at the time by the parties primarily concerned. These exceptions were the men who were contributing on the 5 per cent. basis previously, and who entered the old fund between certain ages. In the new fund, this works out far less advantageously to them than it did in the old fund. One individual on the basis of the old fund used to contribute £161 7s. annually to secure a pension on retirement of £180. In the new fund he contributes £201 17s. 1d. to secure a pension of £160. In other words, he is paying £40 per annum more in order to obtain £20 per annum less after his retirement. There can be no doubt that a certain number of officers of the Railway Administration have made a bad bargain—

That will involve legislation and the hon. member cannot discuss that.

I am dealing with the Minister’s policy in dealing with the applications.

I am simply carrying out the law.

The hon. member cannot discuss that, because it involves new legislation.

May I draw attention to the manner in which the matter was put before the officers concerned, and that surely is a matter of administration.

So far as I followed him, the hon. member wants a change in the legislation.

Perhaps you will give me an opportunity of going on and explaining?

Even if that is the case, it will still involve legislation.

These officers did not have it fairly put before them what the position was, and what would happen if they transferred from the old fund to the new.

I cannot allow that to be discussed.

I am going to draw the attention of the Minister once more to the rates paid by the mines on various articles carried for them by the railways. There is a very comprehensive and valuable report by the Railway Tariffs Committee of 1930. I would refer in the first place to the question of coal rates—coal carried for the gold mines by the railways. I find, according to this report, that the gold mines paid somewhere in the neighbourhood of £753,000 per annum for the coal carried—a rate considered by them to be much too high. It is estimated by the mines that at least 50 per cent. profit is made on the carriage of coal from Witbank to the mines. As to the reasonableness of this rate, it is interesting to note that the rate from Witbank to Johannesburg is equal to .94 of a penny per ton mile, which the committee claims differs only slightly from the average of .987 per ton mile for all goods. This seems to me an entirely erroneous method of dealing with this question. The point is not whether this rate is higher or lower than the average for all goods and coal, but whether the Administration is making an undue profit on the carriage of this particular coal. I think it has been abundantly shown in the previous history of the case that the rate is one which yields 50 per cent. profit. In paragraph 35 of the report it is stated—

That seems to me to illustrate the attitude of the railways towards the mines, that this could only mean 2d. per ton milled. Twopence per ton milled on 30,000,000 tons is no less than £250,000. It is the same policy that we see in other respects. When it comes to other matters with regard to which the mines are taxed, people say claim licences only cost 1d. per ton, native pass fees only 2d. per ton, and the miners’ phthisis levy only costs 9d. per ton. When you total the various items you find they amount to far over 1s. per ton, and, consequently, amount to millions of pounds sterling. When you translate them to the total amount you realize that only 1d. per ton means a large sum of money. I would press upon the Minister that this question of the coal rate should be looked into more carefully, and that a reduction should take place. The case of Vereeniging further illustrates the policy of the Railway Administration towards the mines. At Vereeniging there is the very large station of the Victoria Falls Power Company, which draws its coal from a colliery about five miles away. The coal company which supplies the coal and the Victoria Falls Power Company approached the railways with regard to the high rate of 1s. 7d. per ton charged. They were turned down, and then they stated that they would employ their own method of supplying the coal, by an aerial system, which it was estimated would cost about 3d. per ton as against 19d. They approached the railways once more, pointing out what they were going to do, and the Railway Administration then reduced the rate from 1s. 7d. to 9d. They brought it down to less than 50 per cent. Even at 9d. per ton the rate is very much higher than the coal company could do it for themselves, I presume there is still a handsome profit. The total amount of coal carried is slightly over 1,000,000 tons per annum, and it will shortly increase. In spite of this reduction to 9d., the companies concerned have now arranged to open a new shaft close to the power station, and will thereby dispense with the carriage of coal over the railways. This is what the railway policy has forced the companies to do. Instead of carrying this coal in future at a reasonable rate, the railways will lose a revenue of £45,000 because of their grasping policy in charging too much. I think as far as railway policy is concerned that is deplorable. Let us look at New Kleinfontein, a company utilizing 62,000 tons which is carried at a rate of 1s. 3d. for one mile. The New Kleinfontein is reaching the end of its tether, and this is one of the straws that have helped to break the camel’s back [Time limit.]

I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister on haying tackled and nearly completed the doubling of the line between Bellville and Eerste River and also for the excellent train service which he has given us. I hope when this is completed that the timetable will be more strictly adhered to. I am sorry to say that in the last month or so our trains have been run most irregularly. Even our express train has been arriving into town as much as one hour late. If I tell the House that the journey takes only one hour it is almost inconceivable that it could be one hour late.

That has happened only on one occasion.

On one occasion it was one hour and on another occasion three-quarters of an hour late. I do not know what the rules are in the banks, etc., but in the civil service they are very strict about people reaching their work at the proper time. May I move at this stage—

I cannot agree to accept that.

I hope the Minister will give some attention to this motion. Here we are asked to vote £30,000,000, as much as was voted in seven days after full discussion on the general estimates. We are occupied every morning, afternoon and evening. This is the first occasion on which the Minister has attempted to close off any debate on his vote after one day’s debate only. He knows there will be no further debate. The remaining heads will go through without any trouble at all. If the Minister is so anxious, let him arrange to stop the work of select committees which at this stage cannot be of much value and sit every morning as well as during the afternoons and evenings. It is becoming a physical impossibility to continue. We sit here night after night. I understood from the Minister he expected two days’ debate at the least on this vote. I think I am the only person who has spoken twice. There are several on this side anxious to speak. We are as anxious on this side as the Government is to close this session as soon as possible. I am prepared to give the Minister an assurance that I will say no more, though there are several matters which I consider of great importance, on which I still would like to address this committee. I do appeal to the Minister to consider us and let us go home at a reasonable time. We are certainly not going to finish this vote for some hours to come, and I do not think it is fair to keep us here.

If I thought there was really a very strong feeling on the part of hon. members, we might agree, but if I sum up the feelings of the House, I think we should complete the first Vote.

There is nothing left of it.

Hon. members may still raise many matters of detail. I suggest that we do that and adjourn afterwards. I have no complaint about the criticism offered by hon. members this afternoon, which has been reasonable on the points raised. But we have the experience that if we start again to-morrow, the probability is that a large number of matters will be raised. We might very well now proceed to take the first Vote.

I wish to assure the Minister that there is no desire whatever on our part to delay the proceedings of the committee. He has seen that frorm our work this afternoon. I know the feeling of the House, and of hon. members on this side of the House, and I say that they are very anxious not to prolong the session unduly. I can assure the Minister that he will expedite matters if we adjourn now. He need not fear that there will be any undue prolongation of this discussion to-morrow. But hon. members are tired. They are working here morning, noon and night, and it is not only the members but the officials of the House and everybody else concerned. It looks to me as if it is unnecessary for us to sit so unduly late, because we shall soon have no work to do. I can see the Minister is in a relenting mood. That is the position of hon. members on this side, that we are not in a mood to prolong the proceedings either on these estimates or on other measures which are before us. In view of that I hope the hon. the Minister will meet us.

Motion put and agreed to.